Good and Bad, Right and Wrong (Part One)

Searching for Ethical Clarity in Contemporary Confusion

Do you know the difference between right and wrong? Of course you do---or do you? Maybe not. Too many variables, too many difficult judgments and too many opinions in trying to determine the difference between the two present profound dilemmas to citizens in a civil society. A sampling of cases in which monumental struggles continue to plague twenty-first century people include abortion, capital punishment, racial justice, illegal immigration, right to privacy, national health care, gun ownership and environmental law. Anyone who possesses even basic familiarity with arguments on both sides of these issues understands that neither the problems nor the solutions are simple.

People who dismiss ethical struggles with a wave of the hand will, in all probability, confront the complexity of right and wrong soon enough. It may come in the form of “pulling the plug” on a loved one. It may involve knowing how to treat the child of an unmarried son or daughter, whether or not one will accept the interracial marriage of a relative, or what to do about a close friend or relative who has just confessed to moral failure. It may come with deciding if he or she should file for bankruptcy, whether or not to prosecute a relative who has forged his or her name on bad checks, what do to about a suspected case of child abuse in one’s own family. Modern life has presented us with a host of new ethical questions that we have never had to consider, or that have exacerbated old questions we thought were resolved long ago.

In fact, the judgment between right and wrong lies at the heart of most human acts and relationships. Virtually everything in the human realm—birth, courtship, marriage, schooling, employment, buying, selling, living, dying—goes by a written or unwritten code. Arguments, feuds and wars erupt because some person or group thinks that a wrong has been perpetrated and must be avenged. While we exempt infants and very small children from this burden, we demand that able-minded persons in society reach an “age of accountability”, or an age at which they know right from wrong. Judges, lawyers, mediators and arbitration experts all find gainful employment in the search for right and wrong. Government entities either determine or enforce what is right or wrong---something we call law. Enormous complexities spawned by technological advances like cloning, genome mapping and fetal tissue research occupy much of the time of ethicists and legal counsel for medical laboratories and hospitals. Regardless of the field of study, the policies in question or the people involved, no one can afford to ignore ethical considerations.

In the past, life was much simpler. Iron-fisted tribal patriarchs decided what was right or wrong. Strong families, guided by either wise or at least domineering leaders ruled many people. Kings, prime ministers and presidents often arbitrarily set the standards for ethical behavior. Today, in democratic societies, we have largely relegated this decision-making process to the legislative and judicial branches of government. Ultimately, the highest court in the land hands down decisions on the most difficult cases.

Those of us who believe in God and accept the Bible as the Word of God, find the ethical dilemmas that confound secular society much more manageable. We seriously strive to follow the precepts and instructions that we find in scripture. This gives us a background, a starting point, and a set of clear and divinely prescribed laws from which we govern all human relationships. In our quest for truth in ethical dilemmas, we always appeal first to the Word of God. If we do not find a specific word or verse that applies to the problem, we search for a larger principle that includes the problem in its scope. In the absence of a clearly defined larger principle, we study the behaviors of those people in scripture who had the blessing and approval of God on their lives. In some way, either by direct chapter and verse or by deductive reasoning from scripture, we can arrive at an understanding of essential rightness or wrongness of a situation.

The process may not be easy. Sometimes it is so difficult that several schools of thought have evolved on particular issues. I submit, therefore, an outline to help guide our thinking about the moral and ethical questions that we confront as we live our lives for God. What I say will not matter to the person who does not believe in God, or who does not accept the Bible as the Word of God. But, I do believe that we can apply the scriptures to our problems, even to modern ethical questions made possible by new technologies, and find a peace about troubling issues.

Ethics and philosophy have intrigued thinking man from the earliest times. Zeno, Democritus, Socrates and other ancient Greek philosophers approached the subject in surprisingly sophisticated ways. They concerned themselves with the nature of man and matter, and searched for the elusive quality of good. Many of them believed in a spiritual aspect to ethics, a belief we now call metaphysics. The philosophical systems of Plato and Aristotle were based on idealism and logic, but both tend toward the idea that man discovers true ethical behavior in a quest for his most virtuous and best self. Augustine, probably the most renowned early Christian philosopher, dealt largely with the concept of good and evil, and made man responsible for his moral choices. Many other philosophers offered similar theories and ideas about ethics.

Until the Renaissance Period, most theories about ethical behavior were based upon a belief in God. But by the mid-1400’s, the influence of the church had already begun to decline with the rise of universities and statism. Secular philosophies such as humanism, scientific inquiry and political/social interpretations gradually gained prominence. These ideas denied the intervention of God in the activities of man on the basis that God could not be quantified in rational, observable experiments. Thinking about ethics, therefore, took a new direction. Nicolo Machiavelli, in his book, The Prince, developed the notion that the end justifies the means. Sir Thomas More wrote about Utopia, a fantasy island in which communism, uniformity of the sexes and peace were practiced. Anything that undermined these ideals was considered unlawful.

René Descartes, a French philosopher, broke new ground in rationalism of ethical behavior. He believed that a person should stand by the convictions he has formed within himself and adapt to his environment. He meant that one should judge his behavior on the terms of his own rational thought about himself and his personal convictions, not from any ideas imposed upon him from the outside. Even though Descartes was a devout Catholic, his writings illustrated a definite departure from Christian thought. This deviation continued in others. John Stewart Mill promoted a concept first espoused by Jeremy Bentham, called utilitarianism. In his own words, Mill believed that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” In other words, actions are not intrinsically right or wrong; they may only be so judged after one examines their end result. Further, Mill said that actions must be based upon what will do the most good for the most people.

Given the evacuation of faith from these later developments, it should not be surprising to detect nascent post-modern views. Jean de Lamarck, Charles Darwin, and Herbert Spencer contradicted, or at least questioned, the generally accepted belief that man’s origin was a Creator God. Philosophically, this paved the way for Friedrich Nietzsche to openly reject a system of ethics based upon God. According to Nietzsche, the Judeo-Christian system of moral ideals should be replaced by returning to nature’s values. He believed, as Darwin postulated in his survival of the fittest, that “might makes right”. Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term agnosticism, claiming that genuine knowledge consists only of facts verifiable by the natural sciences. Of ethical matters, Huxley said we have no right to assert the truth or falsity of any assertion without sufficient relevant evidence and certainly should not require others to accept our unsubstantiated beliefs.

Today, many theorists have attracted widespread followings, and since we encounter their views throughout our cultural experience, we would do well to know about them. Søren Kierkegaard’s name is associated with existentialism, a belief that individual existence, freedom and choice are of the highest significance in the human context. Paul Tillich, also an existentialist, believed that people should have the courage to be themselves. Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist and playwright and a leading exponent of existentialism, believed in the notion of individual responsibility independently of religion. John Dewey constructed another philosophical school of thought called instrumentalism in which he believed that philosophy was dynamic and always adapting itself to its environment. This is especially relevant because John Dewey, often called the Father of Progressive Education, has had a profound effect upon education in America.

In terms of ethics, all of these ideas form the underpinnings of today’s evaluation of right and wrong. Whenever we express shock and disbelief at the lack of Biblical or even traditional ethics in our world, we can search the writings of these philosophers and their contemporaries and discover the reason. This brief synopsis omits much of the historical record, but it serves to show that the trends in ethical standards presently derives, for the most part, from whatever an individual believes, with no interference from God, the Bible or other people.

Good and Bad, Right and Wrong (Part Two)

Searching for Ethical Clarity in Contemporary Confusion

Since the Bible has been heralded throughout the centuries as the “Good Book”, the book that teaches right from wrong, it may come as a surprise to some that the Bible does not treat ethics as a singular matter. In fact, one may say that the entire body of scripture is a study in ethics. More properly, the Bible should be understood to be the revelation of an infinitely righteous and holy God to totally unrighteous and unholy man. For the believer, therefore, ethical principles and behaviors do not stand as an independent body of knowable truths; rather, they flow out of the knowledge of God. Moreover, a vital relationship with the living God assures the believer that ethics always transcend intellectual or philosophical knowledge to become a matter of the heart.

Not everything, of course, deserves to be elevated to the level of an ethical consideration. Perhaps the choice between a British diagonal stripe or a plum solid in neck wear would be either right and wrong in the eyes of a fashion expert, but for most of us, such decisions are insignificant. While some may be willing to engage in a lengthy argument on the difference between ethical and non-ethical subjects, I decline to do so here. Vast areas of human behavior lie in the realm of individual tastes and preferences. Some of these things have the potential for ethical adjudication, but until they cross that threshold, they should remain ethically invisible.

Matters clearly stated in the scripture.

The Bible addresses some questions so directly that no controversy really exists. Even the most cursory of examinations of scriptural evidence make this abundantly clear. The only way such evidence can be disproved is to dispute the infallibility of the scripture or adhere to a hermeneutical system other than the literal/historical norm accepted by traditional Bible believers.

For example, suppose a brother in Christ defrauds you in a business deal. Do you have the liberty to take him to a civil court and prosecute him? No, you do not, according to I Corinthians 6:1-8.

1. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4. If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6. But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8. Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. (KJV)

The Apostle addresses this problem in such a direct and thorough way that there remains little doubt as to his meaning. While he concedes that legal transactions among believers can run amuck, he denies that saints have recourse to judgment in front of unbelievers. The wronged party should choose another believer in the church who can settle the dispute. Some people attempt to get around this ruling by claiming that a brother who would defraud them in this way is no longer a brother. Such a charge has no real merit, since all of us have our faults and failures, even while we continue to belong to the body of Christ.

What if the offending brother refuses to accept the judgment of the chosen arbitrator? Even in this case, the scripture is clear. The defrauded brother simply suffers the wrong against him and goes on, rather than pressing the matter in civil courts. In fact, this outcome illustrates the true ethical position. He submits to the scriptural mandate, refuses to bring reproach upon the church by a lawsuit, forgives his errant brother and demonstrates his esteem for spiritual truths over temporal goods or wealth. In addition, he embraces the promises of God to take care of his needs in this life.

Consider the opposite scenario. Imagine that one brother does go to civil law against another brother. He would set in motion a destructive chain of events. Witnesses would be called, people in the church would line up on either side of the dispute, and harsh statements would be made in an atmosphere devoid of love and brotherly kindness. Soon, the incident would most likely mushroom into a serious problem for the church. In fact, whenever this has happened, (and, unfortunately, it has) churches have split, souls have been lost, and factional feuds fomented by the trial have spanned two or three generations. Obedience, honor, forgiveness, temperance and trust in God all become casualties as a result of this unscriptural choice.

The Bible contains many clear statements regarding right and wrong behavior. First, however, a person must answer the operative question of whether or not it is right to obey the Bible. For believers, there can be no other answer than total affirmation of the Bible as the Word of God. It follows, then, that unambiguous statements of right and wrong in scripture dictate to us how we should conduct our lives. People who violate or ignore some clear biblical commands, even while embracing others, transgress a law more fundamental than the particular issue in question, that is denying the will of God in their lives. In effect, they usurp authority over the Bible because they say yes or no to Bible truths at will.

Good and Bad, Right and Wrong (Part Three)

Searching for Clarity in Contemporary Confusion
 
While the scriptures do answer many questions directly, mitigating circumstances or contrasting scriptures often place other questions outside the scope of precise chapter and verse. In these cases, it is still possible to discern the ethical route that must be taken. Circumstantial evidence, also called “prima facie” evidence may lead to a conclusion that is universally perceived as wrong, or that forces an evil or wrong to be committed.

A clear example of prima facie scriptures may be seen in the practice of a certain sect to refuse to take blood transfusions. They base their belief, in part on the following scriptures:

Leviticus 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. (KJV)

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (KJV)

Eating blood, a pagan ritual, does not equate to an intravenous blood transfusion. If we believe that these scriptures do forbid such a procedure, we are immediately faced with a huge conundrum. Medical science has dramatic and historical proof that blood transfusions save lives. Suppose that I refuse a blood transfusion, or I forbid doctors to give my child a blood transfusion, even though certain death would follow. In either case, by citing these scriptures as the reason for my decision, I have forced a fatal convolution upon sound biblical interpretation. In a sense, I have made the Bible responsible for my own, or my child’s, death. Some, who have held such beliefs, have even said that God must have wanted their child to die, although a routine procedure that would have averted death lay well within their grasp. These people often seek supposed moral refuge in the thought that they would rather obey the scriptures rather than the orders of a doctor. In the interest of consistency, then, they ought never to seek medical attention for any condition at any time, whether from doctor, dentist, optometrist or any other medical professional. To say that medical treatment is proper, except for blood transfusions, demonstrates great confusion, if not outright hypocrisy.

It seems quite obvious to me that a superficial and non-exegetical use of the scriptures spells danger. The Law of Prima Facie holds that things do not always exist as they seem to appear. All factors associated with a scripture must be weighed against the face value of that scripture. The following principles, therefore, come to light:

Process: All relevant facts need to be processed before arriving at a decision.
Context: The cultural and interpretive context of a scripture should always be explored.
Consequences: The full range of consequences should be leveraged against inconvenient or bizarre actions.
Divine attributes: No scripture should work against the character or attributes of God.

Other examples abound in which adherents cite scripture as the basis for their beliefs. They include: insistence on keeping the Sabbath (Saturday), mandating the observance of dietary laws and other Jewish customs, subscribing to certain eschatological views, communistic forms of government, metaphysical healing, baptism by proxy, gambling and other widespread beliefs and practices. One must apply the Law of Prima Facie to every doctrine or teaching that appears on the horizon of church polity.

Lest those who seek to subvert the scriptures try to take advantage of this view and call every verse with which they disagree an example of prima facie, I wish to strongly state that the Bible must be taken literally everywhere it is possible to do so. Wherever the meaning is clearly metaphorical or is extremely limited in its scope, we must point these factors out. Otherwise, we would fall into the equal and opposite errors of those who only interpret scripture in a metaphorical or spiritual sense.

The Law of The Larger Principle

As time goes on, the inventions and practices of humankind continue to multiply. The Bible contains no references to many of these things simply because they didn’t exist when the Bible was written. How do we arrive at a moral or ethical position on these eventualities if we cannot find scriptures about them?

First, we certainly must conclude that the question of morality and ethics impinges upon modern inventions, even though the Bible did not anticipate all of them. From smoking tobacco to the atomic bomb, from television to sociobiology, from crack cocaine to feeding tubes, from cybersex to invitro fertilization, we must wend our way through the ethical maze served up to us by modern life.

I submit that the Bible teaches us of larger principles that adequately govern life today, despite the fact that twenty or more centuries have passed since the final pages of scripture were written. Each question we encounter in our modern world connects back to a general or foundational statement of truth found in the Bible. Based upon the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3-17), here is a list of such truths, and the implications they contain, that broadly apply to contemporary themes:

The Law of Worship: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. God alone must be glorified in all of man’s work.
The Law of Creation: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. God created man, animals, plants and all matter in a specific way and for specific reasons.
The Law of Respect: Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. Man must respect himself and all other persons.
The Law of Order: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. God created all things to work within a certain ordained pattern.
The Law of Honor: Honour thy father and thy mother. There are those to whom we must give a high degree of dignity.
The Law of Life: Thou shalt not kill. All of life is a gift of God.
The Law of Fidelity: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Faithfulness to our commitments forms the basis for enduring relationships.
The Law of Reciprocity: Thou shalt not steal. Unlawfully claiming another’s possessions sets up retaliation and seriously destabilizes society.
The Law of Truth: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Our thoughts and actions must be based on total honesty.
The Law of Love: Thou shalt not covet. Love must define our basic motivation for all interaction between people.

The Ten Commandments, therefore, provide a clear and efficient structure to determine most, if not all, ethical issues that have developed subsequent to their issue. Even the nuances of today’s technological explosion fall under the umbrella of God’s magnificent laws. It is my belief that every significant human behavior must find congruency with these laws or principles. The spectrum is too broad to deal with every particularity, but it is possible for us to show the application of the larger principles to a representative list of problems.

Signed, Anonymous

I received your letter today.
You didn’t sign it.

You know who I am, but denied me the same privilege of knowing who you are. You spoke of people and places, hurts and problems, opinions and case histories. You sounded authoritative and informed, like you knew exactly what you were talking about. You used “facts”, referred to incidents in which you could not possibly have the inside scoop, and recounted hearsay as though it were unadulterated truth. But those were the minor offenses of your letter. More seriously, you trashed authorities, contradicted the decisions made by boards and panels formed to fully air problems, and choked on the grist of the rumor mill. While you inflicted harm on others, you took no risks yourself. You lobbed your verbal grenades from an unidentified lair and took shots at unsuspecting enemies like they were sitting ducks.

By your own admission, you suggested your letter was cowardly (you were right), yet you wrote and sent it anyway. You instinctively knew that throwing your grievances over the wall of anonymity appeared unethical, but your secret outrage won out over propriety. Several reasons come to mind why unsigned letters like yours exacerbate the very problems they purport to resolve:

Unsigned letters give no forum for response.
Unsigned letter writers’ misunderstandings have no chance at correction.
Unsigned letter writers don’t have to face the people they criticize.
Unsigned letter writers avoid having any dirt associated with their names.
Unsigned letter writers don’t have to unearth facts or chase down stories.
Unsigned letter writers force everyone to become the suspected author.
Unsigned letter writers pretend to be speaking for everybody.
Unsigned letter writers elevate themselves to a pious perch.
Unsigned letter writers are more interested in self-protection than making things right.

This is why your letter greatly offends me: I believe that anyone who has something to say ought to come out in the open and say it. Look your enemies in the whites of the eyes and make your grievances known. This exposes your charges to the scrutiny of all others. If your charges are true, you will be justified. If they are false, you will be corrected and the accused party will be cleared. Remember, every person accused of wrongdoing deserves the right to know about it and defend himself. This is the scriptural way. “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Matthew 18:15-17. Evidently, you would rather label your enemies as heathens and publicans, bypassing the preliminary steps. It is unfair, unjust and wrong. If you were the butt of someone else’s anonymous letter, you would understand.

What now? Do you want me to act on all your unsubstantiated charges? Do you think I should conduct an investigation, accost the troublemakers and demand they cease and desist on the grounds of your accusations? In choosing to write anonymously, do you excuse yourself from involvement in this messy affair? Do you want others to put their names and reputations on the line while you remain insulated from attack? Do you want me to display courage while you hide timidly in the shadows? Are you the one who has something to hide?

Despite the foregoing remarks, I do entertain the possibility that much of what you said is true. Unfortunately, when you decided against signing your letter, you greatly weakened your position. Issues do not stand by themselves alone; they draw strength and credibility from the people who advance them. Regardless of how substantial your charges may be, your failure to take personal responsibility for them makes them specious. If the problem is not worth attaching your name and reputation to it, why should it be worth attaching mine? You can probably guess the final destination of your letter. Now you know why.

Brothers and Sisters

Brothers and Sisters

“And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?” Genesis 4:8-11

The relationship between brothers and sisters dominates the pages of both the scriptures and of secular literature. The protocols for this relationship lie deeply imbedded in the holy writings, in culture, in legal documents, in social customs, in family traditions and in the actual give-and-take of life situations. Love, hatred, loyalty, betrayal, treachery, devotion, fighting, tenderness—all these elements and many more characterize filial bonds. Even more, the concept of brotherhood and sisterhood transcends genetic ties and holds a general meaning for associations between people who share in the same cause or class. Yet, for all this, the dynamics of the sibling linkage remains largely mysterious. We would all add great richness to our lives if we developed a more complete understanding of what it means to be a brother or a sister.

Famous Brothers and Sisters of the Bible.

Cain and Abel
Jacob and his twelve brothers
Ishmael and Isaac
Jacob and Esau
Rachael and Leah
Moses and Aaron
Moses, Aaron and Miriam
Hophni and Phineas
Absolom, Amnon and Tamar
Peter and Andrew
Martha, Mary and Lazarus
And my personal favorites, Huz and Buz (Genesis 22:21 )

The Bible has certain protocols by which we are to treat brothers or family members.

Deuteronomy 15:1-3 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. 2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD's release. 3 Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release;

Deuteronomy 15:11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

Deuteronomy 24:10 When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.

Sibling Rivalry

Sibling rivalry basically stems from competition for limited or scarce resources among brother and sisters. In the natural habitat, siblings usually compete for food and will fight with each other until one of them manages to kill or drive the other out. The triumphant individual wins the exclusive use of the food resources available in that area.

In nature there are some extreme cases of sibling rivalry. For example, as baby sharks develop within the mother shark's womb, the biggest baby shark devours all of his brothers and sisters, ensuring for himself all of the available food resources. In another example, eagles make their nests at great heights, in mountains or trees. The first baby eaglet that is born kills all his sibling eaglets by pushing them out from the nest as they come out of their eggs. That way all the food that the mother eagle brings will be only for him.

A similar competition exists between siblings in human families. However, here the scarce resources are the TIME, ATTENTION, LOVE and APPROVAL that the parents can give to each of their children. Looking at this situation in very simple terms, if the parents have only a certain limited amount of exclusive (one-on-one) time to give to ALL their children, it is easy to see that if there is only ONE child in that family, ALL of the parents' available time will be for that only child; if there are TWO children in the family, then each child can have HALF of the parents' time; if there are THREE children, then each child gets a THIRD; if there are FOUR, then each one gets a FOURTH of their time; and so on.

That this is indeed the case can be seen by simply looking at most families' photo albums. Looking through these albums, one can see that there are usually many pictures of the birth and first year of their first-born child. For the second child, there are fewer pictures. And, from the third child on, one may have a hard time finding pictures of them in the album - it's as if they didn't even exist!

Life with Brothers and Sisters

Even though they share a room, Jennifer, 15, hasn't spoken to her sister, Nicole, in more than a week. "Nicole is always taking my clothes and wearing them without asking," Jennifer complains. "Last week was the last straw. I found my new sweater tossed in the laundry room, and it had a big stain on it. When I asked Nicole about it, she acted like she had no idea what I was talking about."

Ryan, 16, says he's tired of his younger brother, Sean, 13, hanging around when his friends are over. "He's such a pest," Ryan says. "Every time my friends come over, Sean turns into my shadow and wants to do whatever my friends and I are doing. I wish Sean would find some friends of his own and leave me alone."

Treasuring the Relationship

As I have written in the piece named “Carol,” my eldest sister died suddenly on March 26, 2007 . I did not know it at the time, but I have been deeply affected by her loss. I had many things that I wanted to and should have shared with her, but I just didn’t. I can blame it on the distance or my busyness, but the fact is that I wasted all the opportunities. I filled up my time with things that were way down on the priority list. Someone once said, “Urgency is the tyranny of the important.” Now that Carol’s death has taken her from this life, denying the enjoyment of a living relationship with her, the lost treasure of her life seems infinitely more pronounced to me.

The role of a sibling is much more than most of us make it. Several important factors make this obvious. A finite number people in the entire world share the same parents. Blood relationship binds brothers and sisters together beyond any bond they have with others. While marriage changes the dynamics of that relationship in many important ways, marriage doesn’t destroy genetics, loyalty to parents and shared experiences of childhood. These precious elements of closeness will never be duplicated and must not be lost.

As they grow older, many siblings do not communicate very well with each other, beyond superficialities. “Opening up to each other” means exposure, vulnerability and revealing hidden thoughts. That can be dangerous. Siblings can be too guarded, too sensitive and too obstinate with each other. Perhaps it’s because they continue to play out the petty conflicts they had growing up. In many cases, they still compete with each other, only instead of racing or wrestling, they compete with cars, homes, possessions, bank accounts, education, etc. Some still rival each other for the attention and favor of their parents. Old jealousies, spats and attempts to irritate each other stay alive. Adults siblings should accept that those days are over and they are no longer rivals.

Past events tend to mold and shape present relationships. Interpersonal dynamics can be shaped by many things (e.g. words, acts, attitudes). Present behavior follows templates established long ago. Siblings may instinctively put up their guard around each other for these reasons. Instead of sharing their thoughts, they suppress them because of fear, rejection or ridicule. Tragically, suppressed feelings create unnecessary pain and forfeit potential fulfillment that ought to be experienced in the familial relationship.

Brothers and sisters who fail to express love or approval for each other cause great emotional damage. This is actually a cruel form of manipulation. Here’s how it happens: Subconsciously, one of them acts in a way that says, “You must earn my love or approval. Giving it to you, however, may make you stop doing what I want you to do. Therefore, I will never give it to you.” Withholding love and approval force a sibling to keep working for it. Withholding love and approval may lead siblings to believe they are unloved and unworthy. This can develop painful emotions and creates baggage for life. How bad can it get? Heinous crimes or suicides often result from a sense of being unloved or unworthy.

Many brothers and sisters use physical distance between their places of residence to bury unpleasant feelings and live a relatively stress-free life. It may insulate them against further hurt, but it is just managing or coping, not resolving. We shrink our souls into small boxes that leave out much of the beauty of life. These defense mechanisms really short-change our happiness and impoverish our lives. If siblings treat each other in such a way that they can’t be open and honest with each other, or if they are superficial or silent with each other, then they have cost themselves the benefit and beauty of having a brother or a sister.

Joseph serves as the model for sibling relationships. A more beautiful story, whether in the Bible or out, cannot be found that surpasses Joseph’s encounter with his traitorous brothers. Read it again just to renew the full impact of Joseph’s decision. Genesis 45:1-5. “Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that stood by him; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known unto his brethren. And he wept aloud: and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard. And Joseph said unto his brethren, I am Joseph; doth my father yet live? And his brethren could not answer him; for they were troubled at his presence. And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt . Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.” Pragmatically speaking, his brothers meant nothing to Joseph. According to anyone’s standards, they deserved to be severely punished for their monstrous crime of selling him into slavery. Moreover, Joseph had all the necessary power to enforce their just penalty. What prevented him from carrying it out? I am convinced that his profound respect for his blood relationship to them, plus his undying love for his father, outweighed any sense of retribution he may have received by executing them. His actions stand as a powerful testimony to the value of the family.

Questions:

When is the last time you told your brothers or sisters that you love them?
Do you send birthday cards, Christmas cards, or other greetings to them?
Do you go see them or call them regularly?
Do you still hold a grudge against them for a wrong they committed?
When a brother or sister compliments you, how do you feel?
If they never have, how would you feel if they did? (After smelling salts were administered!)
Do you still look up to a brother or sister? (Have you told him or her?)
Do you still think of a younger brother or sister as a pest or refuse to take them seriously?
Do you still seek approval or love from a brother or sister?

The slightest amount of work on your relationship with a brother or sister promises to yield wonderful and immediate results. You will tap into a source of joy and strength that you never dreamed existed. There’s the phone. Get started.

Mood Linked to Cognitive Abilities

(From National Science Foundation)

St. Louis, Mo., March 18, 2002 -- In a study of how human emotional states influence higher mental abilities, cognitive neuroscientists at Washington University in St. Louis have shown that watching even just 10 minutes of classic horror films or prime-time television comedies can have a significant short-term influence on areas of the brain critical for reasoning, intelligence, and other types of higher cognition.

"To have the best mental performance and the most efficient pattern of brain activity, you need a match between the type of mood you are in and the type of task you are doing," said Jeremy Gray, Ph.D., a Research Scientist in the Psychology Department in Arts & Sciences and lead author of the study. "This is one of the first studies to really show that performance and brain activity are a product of an equal partnership or marriage between our emotional states and higher cognition."

Scheduled for publication March 19 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study is co-authored by Gray and Washington University colleagues Todd Braver, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychology in Arts & Sciences and director of the laboratory where the study was conducted, and Marcus Raichle, M.D., professor of radiology, neurology, anatomy and neurobiology in the School of Medicine .

"Our results suggest that emotion is not a second-class citizen in the world of the brain," Gray said. "The findings surprise people. Mild anxiety actually improved performance on some kinds of difficult tasks, but hurt performance on others. Being in a pleasant mood boosted some kinds of performance but impaired other kinds. To understand how a particular emotion or mood will influence performance, you have to take into account the type of task. Our results show that the brain takes it into account."

Using a sophisticated technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), Gray and colleagues recorded brain activity as people performed difficult cognitive tasks just after watching short, emotional videos. The lingering effects of the videos had remarkably specific influences on the levels of brain activity. A region of the prefrontal cortex was jointly influenced by a combination of mood state and cognitive task, but not by either one alone. Located just under the temples and slightly higher, near the corner of the forehead, this area had been previously thought to be critical for higher mental functions. However, the current work suggests that the region may actually be critical for integrating cognitive tasks together with emotional signals.

"The patterns of activity in this area suggested that it plays a regulatory role, because it responded to the changes in subjective difficulty imposed by the various emotion-cognition combinations," Braver said. "Our evidence for this is that the activity in this region was correlated with behavioral performance, such that stronger activity may have helped to reduce the influence that emotion had on modulating behavior.

"We believe that this is the first study to show that specific brain regions mediate these interactions between emotional states and cognition," Braver added. "Moreover, the findings seem to refute our common sense notions about these interactions--for example, that bad moods are always detrimental for cognition; good moods are always beneficial."

In the study, 14 college-aged men and women were shown a series of short video clips, which elicited one of three emotional states: pleasant, neutral or anxious. Pleasant moods were induced by viewing television comedies, such as "Candid Camera" (1985); and anxious moods followed the viewing of cult horror classics, namely the movies "Halloween" (1978, 1989) and "Scream" (1996).

After a particular series of clips, participants were asked to perform a difficult cognitive task requiring the active retention of information in short-term or "working" memory. Essentially, participants were shown a series of either words or unfamiliar faces on a computer screen, and had to indicate whether the current word (or face, in the face task) was the same as the one they had just seen three times back in the series.

The experiment studied the influence of relatively mild emotions on higher-level cognitive functions. In real life, such conditions might result from arguing with a spouse before leaving for work, or seeing a gory traffic accident on the way there. How might the lingering effects of these disturbing but not traumatic emotional experiences influence your job performance later in the day? Would the influence of various emotions be different if your job is highly verbal (defending a legal argument in court), as compared to highly non-verbal (monitoring plane on an air traffic control system)? The research suggests that the kind of job could make a big difference.

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the McDonnell Center for Higher Brain Function at Washington University in St. Louis .

How To Be A Real Man

What does it mean to be a “real man” today? Although presidential politics may benefit from this discussion, it goes far beyond political party affiliation. According to current websites:

• Real Men Do Yoga
• Real Men Don’t Ask for Directions
• Real Men Cook
• Real Men Own Life Insurance
• Real Men Do Love Cats
• Real Men Wear Kilts
• Real Men Vote Republican
• Real Men Do Therapy
• Real Men Don’t Bond
• Real Men Don’t Get Nightmares
• Real Men Paint Their Nails

Paint their nails? I don’t think so. Actually, pop culture has created a certain image of real men today, and it doesn’t include kilts and cats. Real men are rugged and macho, hard and callused, strong, admired by women, sexually promiscuous, not bossed around by a woman, risky and dangerous, not ruled by emotions, good at sports, wild and free, winners. Never mind character, integrity, restraint or honor.

If you don’t think this description is true, just look how much we reward men who embody these characteristics. They can be lovable, so we love them. They can be funny, so we laugh at them. They can be smart, so we compliment them. They can be friendly, so we hang out with them. They can be exciting, so we follow them. They can be interesting, so we talk to them. They can be talented, so we admire them. They have lots of fun, so we enjoy them. Hey! With all these, great attributes---why change? To many, this seems like the life!

But, what do many wives say about these same men? “He never follows through on promises. He doesn’t want me to nag him, but it’s the only way I can get anything done. He will not talk about God or pray with us. He always says, “Whatever you want”, when I really want him to tell me what he wants. He doesn’t know what he wants. He just seems like another one of my kids. He wants me to take care of the money, but he complains when something goes wrong. He won’t discipline the kids. He leaves the kids totally up to me. He never makes any decisions except about his “stuff.” He doesn’t seem to care.”

Men who aren’t real men want people to accept their good points and overlook everything else. They use their charms to hide their character flaws. In most cases, these behaviors are not sub-conscious or psychological defense mechanisms. They are deliberate forms of manipulation. Men choose these actions for selfish gain. These things do not make a man a real man. They actually depict a pathetic and immature joke of a man.

There are two words that really sum up what it means to be a real man:

Taking responsibility.

Sounds simple enough. But this is what truly divides the men from the boys. Taking responsibility means that a man must hold himself accountable for what happens in his own life. Taking responsibility means a man must do what he is supposed to do. Too many men today fail in this definition. In fact, a counter-culture persona has emerged in which irresponsible men equate running from responsibility with being a real man. They yuk it up between themselves when they talk about all they’ve gotten away with in their games.

Why do men hate to take responsibility for their homes and families?

Fear of failure!

You see, men have a secret rule: Play only the games you know. If you don’t know the game, don’t play, because you’ll lose. Worse yet, you’ll look stupid. Losing is bad enough. You sure don’t want to look stupid doing it.

Therefore, here are the games that men play:
• Insulting the opponent.
• Acting mad.
• Refusing to accept blame.
• Fact-twisting or lying.
• Clamming up.
• Diverting attention.
• Jumping in the car and taking off.
• Arguing in a circle.
• Being totally unreasonable.
• Picking a fight on a winnable subject.

But, men use other reasons for resisting responsibility. Responsibility means accountability. Once he accepts responsibility, he must commit time, money, energy. Once he accepts responsibility, he puts his reputation on the line. Once he accepts responsibility, he opens himself up for criticism.

Here are the fundamental truths about men taking responsibility: I alone will be held accountable. I must not expect nor must I allow anyone else to do what I alone am supposed to do. I would rather fail in an honest attempt to take care of my responsibility, than fail to take responsibility. I am willing to be the most influential man in the life of my family.

Warren Wiersbe makes these truths clear in his study of the responsibilities of priests in the Old Testament. In Leviticus 8–10, we find a detailed outline for the eight-day ordination ceremony that Aaron and his sons had to follow. They had three solemn responsibilities: 1) submitting to God’s authority, 2) revealing God’s glory, and 3) accepting God’s discipline.

1. Submitting to God’s authority. (Lev. 8:1–36). God ruled by command. Everything the priests did was in obedience to definite commands: They called an assembly, Aaron and his sons washed themselves, Aaron clothed himself with priestly garments, Aaron was anointed, Aaron’s sons were clothed, they offered various sacrifices, and finally, the priests were anointed.

Real men accept the responsibility to obey God’s commands. This means obeying all the commands about being a father, a husband, a provider, a priest to his family, a disciple, and so on. If he cannot accept responsibility for God’s commands, how can he accept responsibility for his wife, his children or his church?

2. Revealing God’s glory. (Lev. 9:1–24). After obeying God’s commandments, Aaron and his sons were ready to begin serving the Lord at the altar. Up to this point, Moses had been offering the sacrifices; now Aaron and his sons would take up their priestly ministry. They consisted of the following:

Sacrificing on God’s altar. The priests offered a bull calf for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering; from then on, they would begin offering a burnt offering on the altar every morning and evening (v. 16; Ex. 29:38–42). It signified that each day had to begin and end with total consecration to the Lord.

Glorifying God. One of the main purposes of the tabernacle ministry was to glorify the God of Israel whose glory dwelt on the mercy seat in the holy of holies. The pagan nations around them had priests and sacrifices, but they didn’t have the glory of God.

Deal with their own sins first. After the sacrifices, Aaron and his sons and all of Israel were forgiven, dedicated wholly to the Lord and in fellowship with Him. This work was done in proper order. It reminds us that men must first deal with their own sins before they can dedicate themselves totally to the Lord. Only then can they enjoy fellowship with Him.

Sharing God’s blessing. One of the privileges of the high priest was that of blessing the people. On the first day of his ministry, Aaron gave two blessings. He gave the first one alone. He shared the second one with Moses after the ordination ceremony was finished. It was a deliberate act of selfless sharing.

Seeing God’s glory. The glory of the Lord had appeared when Moses finished erecting the tabernacle (Ex. 40:34–35), and it would appear again at the dedication of the temple (2 Chron. 7:1ff). Our gracious God shares His glory with sinful people!

Men must determine that God’s glory will abide in them. Every man must see himself as a lamp through which the glory of God will shine to his family and his world. He must think, “Let them see Jesus in me. Let them see love, grace, forgiveness, truth, honesty, respect and all other evidences of spirituality as they exist in me.”

3. Accepting God’s discipline. (Lev. 10:1–20). Nadab and Abihu sinned grossly against the laws of God. They wrongfully usurped authority which did not belong to them. They had the wrong fire. They had the wrong motive. They wielded the wrong influence. All of these wrongs led to Aaron’s sorrow. He had to learn that with the privileges of the priesthood come responsibilities and sacrifices. Unless punishment and discipline follow broken commandments, divine orders will be meaningless.

God’s discipline for Aaron was severe. Both of the sons were stricken by God and died. Aaron wasn’t even permitted to mourn their deaths. He remained in the tabernacle to complete the ceremony of ordination and his two nephews buried the bodies. Aaron learned that it wasn’t enough for the priests merely to teach the people the difference between the holy and the unholy. Priests were more than teachers. They had to practice holiness in their own lives. This is one of the burdens of the message of Ezekiel the prophet. (Ezek. 22:26; 42:20; 44:23; 48:14–15).

Real men learn how to live in the real world. That means living within the parameters in which actions count. When real men make mistakes, they accept the punishment and consequences that come to them. In this way, they teach justice, truth and peace to those they serve. This also becomes a de facto method to condemn lying, fraud, violence, disrespect, hatred and other sins or vices.

There are false ways of taking responsibility: Arrogance. “I am the head of the house!” Stupidity. “Shut up and listen to me!” Anger. “I’ll teach you to never do that again!” None of these work and they do not yield legitimate authority. All attempts to take responsibility will fail if a man is not under God’s authority. When a man’s family sees that he is doing God’s will, they are far more likely to accept his authority over them.

How, then, does a man take responsibility?

He shields his wife and children from the load and takes it himself.

He makes right decisions that deal with morality, character and spirituality.

He puts God first, regardless of the costs involved.

Don’t you think it’s time that we took back the definition of real men from the fashion designers, the Budweiser crowd, the sports junkies and the con artists? Real men find their definition in core character traits, not from muscle tone or party animal behavior.

Apostolic men must be real men who willingly accept their rightful responsibilities in life.

The Ten Commandments of Complaining

We all do it, and for good reason. The newspaper delivery guy throws the paper in the mud. The clerk put us on hold while she (probably) keeps talking to her boyfriend. The cashier forgets to put the eggs in the cart. The credit card company slaps a late fee on us because we went one second beyond the due date. We complain when the other guy’s at fault. We complain when it’s our fault and the other guy won’t give us a break. Businesses complain about customers; customers complain about businesses. Bosses hear nothing but complaints from workers. Workers hear nothing but complaints from their bosses. Both bosses and workers complain that no one ever listens to their complaints anyway.

Before yelling to stop this bus so you can get off, I need to remind you that complaining is not all bad. In fact, complaining is the trigger to kick things into action. It all starts with the baby fussing over a wet diaper, an empty stomach or an irritation of some sort. All of a sudden, the pitiful little wah-wah’s unleash an avalanche of clean, dry clothes, milk and soothing pats and cooing voices. Although his cognitive processes are not developed fully enough to analyze this chain of events, this formula gets hard wired into his brain: Need + Complaints = Satisfaction. Later, her baby teeth begin to break through the skin and she cries from the pain. And, just like clockwork, here come the soft hands of mercy to rub her gums and rock her to sleep…or at least to a state of relative calm. It works too when he squeals from bumping his head on the table, yelps from the bite of a sibling or bawls when daddy puts him down and rushes off to work. Each time, something that feels good, tastes good or makes the pain go away rewards his protest. He’s hooked. Complaining is the way to get what he wants.

Then, something starts going wrong with the process. He cries, as usual, when he wants more candy, a shiny new toy or the freedom to run out in the street. Nothing happens. She cries louder, but she hears a strange, unfriendly sound in reply. Thinking that the stooges who always answer his complaints don’t hear or understand him, he throws his complaint into an ear-splitting high gear, falls to the ground and kicks his legs. Instead of the usual hands of comfort reaching out to him, however, rough hands grab him and yank him to his feet and plop him in a chair facing the corner. Hey! What in the world is going on? Her learned behavior that had always worked in the past now delivers a very different result. As he matures, most of these dilemmas work themselves out, but even as an adult, a certain level of residual annoyance always surfaces when his or her complaining fails to yield a satisfactory outcome.

What do we take away from these hard lessons of infancy and childhood? Complaining about some things may work, but not about everything. The way we complain about things, even when we have legitimate gripes, may produce mixed results. These factors, along with the reasons, targets and frequency of complaints combine to bring either success or failure in getting our way. None of us ever really stop complaining—we just get better at it. At least, we ought to since complaining eats up enormous amounts of energy, has the potential to harm worker morale, and often negatively impacts job performance. In fact, the nature and number of complaints accurately peg the maturity of the complainer. Consider the following guidelines to smarter complaining.

1. Thou shalt not complain about unimportant things. Don’t waste your time protesting trivialities. If you do, people will think you are a big baby and will tend to pay less attention to you the next time you voice a complaint. For example, do cars parked on the lines instead of between the lines annoy you? Ignore them. Does a fellow employee who laughs too loudly get under your skin? Ah, ah, ah—not a word! Does a boss who won’t let you leave one minute before the end of your shift send you over the top? Shrug it off. Thousands of little things like these affect all of us in the human condition. Let them slide without making a scene.

2. Thou shalt not complain about things which cannot be changed. The weather, the traffic, the price of gasoline, the job location…why complain if you know nothing can be done about them? If you hired in knowing that the job was tough and the hours were long, then your complaints about the tough job and long hours lack merit. If you agreed to a long list of requirements that applied to your position, you forfeited your right to complain about the requirements. Certain realities define the nature of our jobs. Unless you have a magic wand to wave, it is reasonable for you to accept these parameters without complaining and stay positive. Railing against fixed realities hurts you and the people you work with in many different ways.

3. Thou shalt not complain in an offensive manner. Even if you have a legitimate complaint, coming across like an ogre spoils your chance at success. Venting doesn’t address the problem. Real change calls for a calm approach that shows respect and reason. Make sure your attitude is in full control before you open your mouth.

4. Thou shalt not complain at a bad time. Every job runs into peak activity time when interruptions can’t be allowed. Come in early, stay after hours or choose a lull in action to register your complaint. Also, pay attention to kind of day your boss is having. If you know he or she is stressed out, you’re more likely to cause a scene rather than find a solution.

5. Thou shalt not complain to the wrong people. If you have a problem with your boss, do not take your complaint to a fellow employee, a customer or client. It doubles the difficulty, because now your boss has a problem with two persons instead of one. Do not excuse backbiting by saying you had to talk to someone to get it off your chest. If needed, run your complaint by a person totally unconnected to your job so there’s no danger of interference.

6. Thou shalt not complain without ceasing. Fussing about anything and everything all the time gets really old. At first, bosses try to listen and respond to the complaints, but when they suspect that nothing ever pleases such people, they get increasingly irritated at them. It soon becomes clear where the real problem lies. Chronic complainers go through life with a huge blind spot—themselves!

7. Thou shalt complain about real health and safety issues. You are not overstepping your bounds to raise issues about health and safety. These problems must be addressed immediately for obvious reasons. Also, the legal, financial and public image welfare of the business may be threatened if an incident caused by negligence leads to injury or illness. If nothing is done, complain again or take it to a higher authority.

8. Thou shalt complain about unfair treatment. Discrimination or bigotry on the job must not be tolerated. If you feel that you have been victimized by unjust treatment or decisions, talk to the proper people to get it resolved. Even if such situations are uncomfortable or require a lengthy process to make it right, your welfare and the workplace morale is at stake.

9. Thou shalt complain if reasonable, human expectations are not met. Every employee has a right to expect clean, sanitary workplace, a work area kept at a right temperature, functional restrooms properly stocked and a secure environment. When these basic needs are lacking, a complaint is in order.

10. Thou shalt complain if you are prevented from performing your job. Any situation with personnel or workplace conditions that interferes with your job performance needs to be reported. Problems that go unresolved harm the worker, the customer and the reputation of the business.

Actually, many of the issues that arise in the work environment don’t warrant the label of a complaint. They may simply be small problems that need to be pointed out so they can be easily resolved. Sometimes, however, major conflicts do occur that require everyone’s attention. You should have enough self respect and good will toward your business and employer to talk about such conflicts. Many full-blown crises could be avoided if the right people would feel free to address the issues when they are first noticed. Complaints that get taken care of promptly and properly mean contented workers, happy bosses and satisfied customers.