I recently saw a commercial on TV that was revealing of the shrewdness of the present, consumerist culture, and its underlying claim to a non-Christian morality and ethic.  A young boy and his father were shown in their family’s bathroom, changing a light bulb.  The father took out the older-style bulb and replaced it with a newer, energy-efficient, florescent bulb.

“An energy efficient florescent bulb, three dollars,” the boy’s voice said.

The next scene showed the boy drinking a glass of water from the tap, his father watching.  “A plastic, reusable drinking glass, two dollars,” said the boy.

Next they were in the hardware store being some other reusable, environmentally friendly item.  Perhaps a water-saving adjunct? Again the boy quoted the item and its price.

Then, the camera zoomed in on the faces of the little boy and his father, smiling at one another.

“Making your father a better man, priceless.”

What?!  Using economically responsible light bulbs, not using throw-away drinking cups, using cloth lunch sacks to save our forests, okay.  Those things are good for the earth, smart decisions for those who take seriously the divine will that we humans dutifully care for the world, and leave it in better shape for our grandchildren.  But “making my father a better man”?! 

It seems that American industry has tapped into the environmental ethic and begun to elevate it to the status of family religion.  Morality expressed in environmentalism.  Treat the earth well, don’t burn up too much carbon fuel, and you’re a “better man.”  Drive a pickup or a van, and you’re a profligate, a user, a morally questionable man—a worse man, I guess.  Use a plain, old-fashioned light bulb, and you’re probably setting a bad example for your children.  (Who, according to the makers of this commercial, are in a position of teaching proper, moral behavior to their folks.)

Did I mention the product that this commercial was selling?  MasterCard, the folks who brought usurious interest rates, hidden fees and penalties, and mailboxes stuffed with their “pre-approved” credit lines offered on an almost daily basis to college freshman and to those who have recently claimed bankruptcy.  What does MasterCard have to gain by the fathers of our land going eco-friendly?  Nothing.  Nothing, that is, until those Dad’s use their plastic to purchase re-usable sacks and long-life florescent bulbs.  Tapping into our love of our families, our desires to be good parents and role models, and the legitimate commitment to graciously care for and preserve creation, the guys in suits have figured out yet another way to get their hands into our pockets.  Brother, whenever Madison Avenue decides to weigh-in on how to make you a “better man,” keep your hand on your wallet.

Apparently the technological ability to select our children by gender has a dark side that has cast its shadow over the United States.  According to the New York Times article of June 14 , 2009, headlined U.S. Births Hint at Bias for Boys in Some Asians, US census data suggests that Asian, Korean, and Indian communities in the United States have a “statistical variation” that is “significant” in its apparent evidence for a preference of male over female children (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/nyregion/15babies.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all).

It seems that the trend indicates a growing tendency for these families to “embrace sex-selection techniques, like in vitro fertilization and sperm sorting, or abortion.”  In short, the selective aborting of female babies that I previously wrote about (April 15, 2009) is not isolated to a country or a specific political system, but seems to be a part of a (portable) world-view of life that attributes greater worth to a person based on their gender alone.  The idea is horrid, but understandable in our current materialistic, “success” oriented culture.  In a land like our own, that tragically views children as commodities that are managed and arranged around the life goals of the parents, should we be shocked or incensed that newer citizens would take things a step further, and simply abort the babies that would not (in their estimation) further the goals and aspirations for success of the parents?  This isn’t a sci-fi novel issue, and it isn’t something that is isolated to totalitarian, atheistic cultures.  It’s here, just down the street from you, just over there.  It’s your neighbors and friends.  It’s their children.  If we’re thinking correctly about this issue, it’s actually OUR children.

Perhaps the most puzzling statement quoted in the article was by Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg of Fertility Institutes in California (which does not offer abortions), a clinic that advises couples in the options involved in sex-selection procedures.  “Culturally, there are a lot of strange things that go on in the world,” Dr. Steinberg said. “Whether we agree with it, it’s not harming anyone.”

Anyone, that is, except our daughters.

 ”If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; 8 but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

A loophole is a condition or application of a law that allows for a person to subtly circumvent the law itself—all without formally breaking that law.  We’re pretty good at finding loopholes in our tax laws here in America, come April 15^th!  But let’s put ourselves in the sandals of those to whom this text was originally written—the Jewish people of Israel, approximately 1400 BC.  Let’s pretend that we’re just finishing breakfast, and are preparing to head to our field to put in a long day’s work.  We look out the door of our small, stone house and see a poorly dressed man, standing.  He’s obviously waiting for us to come outside.

I say, “Oh, great.  There’s another one of them today.  What are we going to do?  We can’t become village lunch ticket!”

You say, “He’s poor, we’ve got to help him. ““If there is a poor man with you…””

“How do you know he’s poor,” I say.  “He’s got shoes on his feet, clothes on his back.  He walked here; he could just as easily have walked down the road to the next farm.”

You say, “But he’s a brother, like it says, “one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you…”

“Let’s not get literalistic or fundamenalistic here!” I say.  “How do you know he’s a Jewish brother, or from this town?  And sure, God may have giving the nation this land…but we’ve worked it ourselves, and own it, and need to be good stewards of it, not giving its produce away to every guy that comes along looking for a handout.  I don’t think the Bible wants us to just throw common sense out the window, do you?”

You say, “It’s commanded, “you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother.”

“Well,” I say, relieved and a bit offended, “you certainly don’t know my heart, do you?  This is an issue between me and God.  Remember, “Judge not!”

“Right,” you say, “…but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

“Yes!  I’m glad you quoted that verse,” I say.  Lend!  Lend!  We’re supposed to lend him what he needs—NOT give, but lend!

“Yes, but—“

“But how can you lend something to someone who doesn’t have any way to repay it?  And how can you even know that he’ll be around to repay it,” I say.

“But you just said that you don’t know that he’s really poor.  You said, “He’s got shoes on his feet, clothes on his ba—“ 

“Right!” I say.  We can’t know, so how can we really apply this literally, without some sort of verifica—“

Suddenly, I don’t have your attention anymore.  You’re looking out the doorway.

“He’s gone now,” you say.

“Just as well,” I say.  But I mean, “Mission accomplished.” 

And I say, as if changing the subject, “Tomorrow, let’s eat breakfast on the back porch.  It’s pretty there in the mornings.”

Sharon and I are in SF this weekend, after a week in Reno at the National Foster Parents Conference.  It was a great conference, and I was further strengthened my convictions that one of the most powerful ministries that we, as Christians, can do is to take a part in caring for the many children in our country who are removed from their birth families, and need a safe, loving home to live in.  We’ve made a lot of noise about abortion, stem-cell research, abstinence training, etc.  Actually caring for these hurting children is a practical way of putting some action with our words.  

…or, you can NOT love them, apparently.  I’ve included this  article to simply underline the direction that our world-culture seems to be taking.  It is actually more accurate to say our world is simply following the direction of many other cultures in history that tolerated gender selective infanticide.   It seems that Moloch is alive, and still has an insatiable appetite for children.

New Study Shows China’s Population Seriously Skewed

Chinese males under the age of 20 outnumbered females of that same age range by more than 32 million in 2005, due in large part to the government’s one-child policy and its citizens’ use of sex-selection abortion and even abandonment, according to a new study in the British Medical Journal. The study of 4.7 million people under the age of 20 in China covered every county in the country. It also found that in 2005 there were 1.1 million more baby boys born than baby girls. The study was published April 9. “Sex selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males,” the study says. Technically, China has a policy prohibiting sex-selective abortions, although the policy is largely ignored. China’s government instituted its one-child policy in the late 1970s in an effort to slow the birth rate of the world’s most populous country. Penalties for violations of the policy have included fines, arrests and the destruction of homes, as well as forced abortion and sterilization. Infanticide, especially of females, also has been reported. Because China’s culture has a strong preference for sons over daughters, the one-child policy has led to a sex imbalance. The program generally has limited couples in urban areas to one child and those in rural areas to two, if the first is a girl. The male-to-female ratio for births in urban and rural areas is 119 to 100, the study said. But that ratio increases for second births in rural areas, where it is 146 males to 100 females, with nine provinces showing a ratio for second births of 160 to 100. (The normal ratio is about 105 to 100.) “China will see very high and steadily worsening sex ratios in the reproductive age group over the next two decades,” the paper said. “Enforcing the existing ban on sex selective abortion could lead to normalization of the ratios.” Baptist Press 4/13/09

In every instance of sin I can think of, pragmatism (“what works to get me what I want?“) is chosen over ethics (“what is the correct behavior, regardless of what I want?”).   Any form of pragmatism that would lead a person to kill an unborn infant is tragic.  A pragmatism that leads to killing an infant because of her gender?  Perverse. 

How should we respond to such barbarism?  I can think of at least three ways…  First, we should pray that God would grant our world a growing, universal value for all human life in all its stages. Our world is worth caring about, praying for, and not giving up on.  Second, we must see to it that we, as Christians, practice what we preach–we must always seek to value and protect all human life in all of its stages and circumstances.  (And I really do mean ALL.)  This means that people don’t lose their intrinsic value because of their sin, politics, gender, nationality, sexual practices, religion, or any other variable.  Finally, we should commit ourselves to speak of the simple truth whenever and wherever we can.  I don’t mean harangue people with opinions and statistics, but intead, simply state the truth–ie, “China seems to be valuing the lives of male infants more than female infants, as suggested by the following statistics….”  Simply tossing a morsel of truth into a sludge pond of darkness and lies will (Solzhenitsyn would say must) inevitably defeat the lies, and clean up the pond.

19 ‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

Okay, I’ve got to write something here, at least so it doesn’t look like I’m afraid to!  This verse is a bit of a curve ball to me, to tell the truth, and I think it would be even if I had grown up on a farm or ranch.  Why the agricultural, animal husbandry, and textile related commands?  I’m not sure.  I’ve looked in a couple of commentaries and found one theory has to do with the holiness of God—that to mix the breeds and seeds somehow communicates a want of respect for the “separate otherness” of our transcendent Creator.  (Holiness = separateness, etc.)  Another approach is that these three commands are all actually common-sense rules for running a good farm:  The mixing of cattle weakens the breed; the mixing of seeds diminishes the crop and presents harvesting challenges, etc.  One commentator mentioned that to mix wool and other types of fabric for clothing was actually dangerous to the wearer—resulting in an increased skin temperature, which could cause boils to break out on the skin!  These explanations aren’t very compelling to me.  God’s people may have been stubborn and spiritually immature, but they weren’t stupid.  There is plenty of evidence that the surrounding peoples of the land of Canaan had a developed farming industry.  To tell the truth, if I were to see a herd of all cross-bred cattle, or one field or varied types of grain, I don’t think the word “unholy” would come to mind…  Lazy, perhaps…but not unholy.

So, why these three commands?  Perhaps they are given to aid the Israelites in forming a culture that is different in its treatment of animals and land.   Perhaps a blurring of breeds would create a singularly unique animal, but would erase the beauty of one particular type of breed.  Perhaps God likes different breeds of cattle.  Perhaps to sow your field with two different kinds of seed would make you look like a desperate, foolish farmer instead of a person who worked hard, played by the rules, and trusted God for the outcome.  Perhaps wearing clothing from two different kinds of cloth….   Well, I’m open to suggestion on that one!  Whatever the exact reasons for these divine commandments given to the Israelites, we can say with relative certainty that God cares about how we treat the animals we raise for food, the land that we sow our seed on, and how we put to use the resources that we gain from land and animals.   

(Whew…  Glad I’m done with that one….!) 

17 ‘You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. 18 ‘You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.

“What I think of him is no one’s business by mine and mine alone!” 

“As long as I’m not hurting anyone, it doesn’t really matter how I feel about anyone, does it?”

Have you ever thought these types of thoughts?  The one inviolable space that each of us owns, and that no one else can lay a claim to, is our hearts.  It’s the place where we do our feeling, thinking, and deciding.  What comes out of our mouths (or keyboards) may or may not be in true conformity to the reality of what we’re thinking in our hearts.  Our faces can conceal truth to the degree that only the most astute observer can detect incongruity between our words and our faces—but no one can truly get into our hearts.  No one, that is, but God.  Not only does the Almighty have the power to know our most intimate thoughts, but He also claims the right to be obeyed in our most inner sanctuaries—our hearts.  Despite external appearances, or even words—He knows the truth of what we think of our brothers and sisters.  He knows our motives, and can clearly see when we are being “painfully honest,” and enjoying the painfully part of it more than the honest part.  So, in the community of belief, of faith—grudges are to be routinely discarded like the trash.  They are not to be given asylum in our hearts, but instead are to be replaced with actions and words of love.  Why go to the trouble of such exacting inner scrutiny and righteousness where no one can see?  Simply because there is One who can see, and has a right to demand that He not see grudges and hatred in the place that He has claimed for Himself alone—our hearts. A community that lives by such standards will find peace and security as its members discover the joy of true, lasting, secure friendships.

15 ‘You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly. 16 ‘You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the LORD.

The boundaries of fairness in our relationships are not to be determined by the external circumstances of poverty or wealth.  Instead, all people are to be treated with an equality that is based on our recognition of them as our neighbors.  We are not only to see that all are treated fairly in whatever dealings we may have with them, be it the PTA, Little League, the gas station, or simply the service counter at our local store.  And we are to practice fairness in our dealings with each other even when we are apart; we are not to slander our neighbor.  To slander someone simply means to speak of them in their absence in a way that is false, incomplete, or simply damages their reputation.  It stands to reason if someone isn’t present to defend themselves concerning what is being said about them, they aren’t really being treated fairly, are they?  In short, we are not to take any action, or utter any word, that detracts or diminishes the life of our neighbor.  Honestly, when it comes to dealing with living beings, we are simply not to act or speak against the life itself of that person.  “Who is my neighbor?” is a question once asked of the Lord Jesus by a man who wanted to draw some boundaries between the people he bore an obligation to and those he didn’t.  The Lord’s answer forever erased the lines people draw between those considered worthy of protection and those considered unworthy (Luke 10:25-37).  But let me put a different spin on the question:   Ask yourself, “Who isn’t my neighbor…and why aren’t they?  Your answer will reveal your boundaries. 

13 ‘You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning. 14 ‘You shall not curse a deaf man, nor place a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall revere your God; I am the LORD.

The theme of these verses is exploitation of the relatively weak by the relatively strong.  The people of God are to abhor any act or word that takes advantage of the vulnerability and need of anyone.  Should our neighbor be found in any circumstance in which we could take advantage of him for our own gain or benefit, we are to avoid doing so at all costs.  We are not to take advantage of opportunities to gain our neighbor’s material possessions unfairly.  Should we owe anything to someone who has worked for us—we are to see that the worker is paid in a timely fashion and in such a way that he or she does not live in lack and uncertainty while we sleep soundly in relative security.  We are not to express disdain towards a person whose physical disabilities, such as the inability to hear or see, may cause inconvenience to us—in fact, besides not making life hard for them, we are to see that obstacles and hindrances are removed from them, so that their disability creates as little negative impact in their lives as possible.  And all of this protective, thoughtful, kindhearted behavior is to be pursued because we live in awe of the God of the deaf, blind, underemployed, needy and vulnerable.  It is because of who He is that we are to model and reform our behavior toward others—not because of the inherent goodness in ourselves!

How might these commands play out in our lives today, especially if we want to truly fulfill the law of love, and not just cross t’s and dot i’s?  For starters, I can see them making a difference in how we respect and care for others.  Don’t take advantage of other people’s misfortune for your own enrichment.  Whether its at a garage sale of a family under eviction, or a real estate broker’s office—be sure that you are not getting ahead at the expense of your neighbor who has fallen behind.  Just say no!  Don’t withhold money that you owe others, for any reason.  Be sensitive and pre-emptive in meeting the needs of those with disabilities.  Don’t disdain those who live with disabilities and weaknesses.  If someone has a tough time making it through life—good grief, don’t make it harder for them!   

And finally, remember Who commands such sensitivity and costly righteousness in our daily dealings—it is our holy God.  For though a deaf man cannot hear a curse spoken against him—his holy God hears the faintest whisper of any foul thought that lives in any heart on earth. 

11 ‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. 12 ‘You shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.

Everything you have is something somebody worked for. The clothing you wear, the car you drive (should you be so blessed!), the food you held on your fork when you last ate. Everything material possession was created or obtained or procured by somebody. Verse 11 of chapter 19 in Leviticus clarifies for the reader that hopefully, what you have is what you own, and not what you have stolen. To live in a community of faith is about much more than simply sharing the same creedal affirmations—it is all about sharing life together. This means sharing our material possessions, and knowing that, while we choose to share what we have, nonetheless, what we have does in fact remain our own. Notice, this law precludes an idea of communal possession of goods. People owned their things. The day a faith community prohibits individual ownership it threatens the possibility of true generosity; you can’t give away what really isn’t yours. God’s community must also be a community of truth. When lying and deceit are tolerated in a community of faith, trust is the first causality. To tolerate lies and deceit in our relationships rips out the very basis of community itself—the sharing of our (real) self. In its place it leaves a false community—the sharing of the apparent self. Also, children cannot grow up healthy and secure in an environment in which the truth is distorted or routinely compromised, particularly by their parents and religious leaders. So, when we lie to one another, and allow lies to exist in our faith communities, we inevitably sabotage our own future. Finally, it is sad but true, that rarely is lying, deceit, and theft practiced in a faith community in which the will and nature of the Lord Himself is not appealed to as a means of justifying such behaviors. Whether in Jonestown, Waco, or simply a Sunday School classroom where a person is told that God supports an attitude or action that is wrong—the most destructive of our leaders seem to be the most skilled at convincing followers that the Lord Himself is behind their shenanigans. God’s followers, whether in the deserts of the Sinai Peninsula 3500 years ago, or in church today—are called to live out lives respect, truthfulness and trust before the eyes of a ripped-off, over-hyped, thick-skinned world that looks on to see if the people of God are really what they’re cracked up to be.