Thoughts on silence

Periodically, I am struck by this thought: "Why are we afraid of silence?" It is usually spurred by actually experiencing quiet, and realizing that rather than being something that should be avoided, or something that makes us uncomfortable, silence can be rejuvenating. I'm not advocating we all take up yoga and start meditating, but maybe there is something to be gained by slowing down and allowing our brain time to get its bearings.

 Another thought that usually follows quickly after I begin considering our "silencephobia*" is, "Why do we seek amusement over all else?" We want to be entertained. Looking at society, you'd think that the worst possible thing would be not having plans on a Friday night. We always want to be doing, doing, doing. We program our kids that down-time is evil. We actually use it as a punishment for them. What is there in silence that we find so terrifying? 

Recently, I was studying Philippians 4, and I realized something. It looks like Paul's theme for the chapter is "Living Right". He talks about having right attitudes, right actions and right emotions. It hit me as I was reading, that the Bible's order of priorities for how we should feel is just about exactly opposite to "normal" priorities. In man's method, we see people trying to have enough so they can be content, thinking that once they are content, they will be happy, and when they are happy, they will have peace. I think that's why we see such an emphasis on amusement. A friend of mine in college had a theory about the origin of the word amuse. He thought it may have it's roots in ancient Greek. He pointed out that the word appears to be made up of the Alpha Privative (the letter "A" at the beginning) and the word for thought. The Alpha Privative literally takes the word it is applied to and makes it the opposite of or negative of the original word, so if muse means "thought" amuse means "without thought" or "not thinking". Whether or not that theory is accurate, it provides a lot to think about. Today people seek amusement over all else. They want happiness, and to get it, they feel they must turn off thought. They seek amusement to find contentment, because they know if they think about it too long, they'll find a huge God shaped hole in their lives. The mantra of "Party hard, die young, leave a pretty corpse" could easily have the codicil "so you don't have time to think about what's causing the empty feeling."

On the other hand, exactly opposite to man's philosophy is what we see in Philippians 4. We are told to be at peace with our circumstances, regardless of what they are, because we know God and understand that He loves us and is in control. Once we are at peace in whatever state we are in, we will be able to rejoice and experience happiness, and because of that, we can be content.

Don't be afraid of silence. When the noise dies away and we shut out the distractions, you'd be amazed what you can find. Peace and contentment can be attained. In fact, they are the emotions God wants us to be feeling.

*Made up term, not a clinically diagnosed phobia. The actual phobia of silence is Sedatephobia.

Religious Freedom and Conflicting Beliefs

Please stop rallying behind Kim Davis as an example of someone who's First Ammendment Rights were violated. She's not. Her rights are fully intact. The government is not asking her to perform the ceremony. It is not asking her to add her personal stamp of approval on these unions. It is merely asking her to issue a certificate. Her approvoal or disapproval is not needed. Rather, this is an example of Ms. Davis imposing her convictions on others. "I believe that is sin, therefore, I will not allow you to do it." This is totally different than if she were being forced to do something she didn't believe in. If she is deeply convicted that it is wrong for her to be involved even incidentally, then she needs to ask for a transfer to a different job. At that point, if the state fires her, then it is worth considering as an issue with her First Ammendment Rights. If the state imprisons her for leaving her job because she feels she can't in good conscience provide marriage licenses to same sex couples, THAT is a violation of her First Ammendment Rights. This is most definitely not the same as a pastor who is asked to perform a same sex marriage. He has every right to refuse, just as the couple has every right to find someone else who won't refuse.

I've seen parallels drawn between Ms. Davis and Germans working in the government in Nazi Germany. People have applauded her "standing up to evil" and resisting a government that is trampling her rights. Please stop. These situations are in no way related. A German soldier told to execute a person merely for the crime of being born into a different race, should have been able to recognize that what he was told to do was wrong, and should have refused to do it. (However that brings up the discussion of evolution, and the beliefs that the people they were executing were not "fully evolved" or "fully human", that their DNA was mixing with the "true humans", and preventing further evolution, and therefore, by exterminating them, they were doing humanity a service. But that's a discussion for a different day.) The crux of the matter is who is being forced. Let's set aside arguments about right and wrong, moral and immoral for a moment (not that they don't matter, they most certainly do, but in *this* discussion, they don't. This disussion is about who is being forced to do something they don't believe in. Ms. Davis believes homosexuality is a sin. The gay couple who comes in believes they have every right to get married. By refusing to issue them a marriage liscense, Ms. Davis is imposing her beliefs on the couple. Does that mean she must act against her conscience? Absolutely not. She can seek a different job. Now, let's change the discussion. Should that gay couple be able to go into any bakery and demand that they make them a wedding cake? No. That would be imposing their beliefs on someone else. The business owner has the right to politely refuse, because they don't want their business associated with gay marriage. The couple has every right to look somewhere else. The same goes for officiants. A pastor can refuse to marry them, because it would be a violation of his consience to do so. They have every right to find someone else. The pastor and the baker are not imposing their beliefs on the gay couple. Forcing them to comply would be imposing the gay couple's beliefs on them.

Let me make one thing clear. I believe homosexuality is a sin. It's laid out fairly clearly in the Bible. If you disagree, just read Romans. Personally, I find it repugnant. However, I realized something. My reaction to homosexuality is what God feels about sin. It is repulsive to Him. I am repulsive to Him, because I am a sinner, and yet He looked past my sin, saw me, and sent His Son to die on the cross to pay the penalty for my repugnant sin. If He can look past my sin to me, and love me in spite of myself, how can I do any less for my fellow man? My job is not to enforce my morality on those around me. My job is to live my life consistently, following God's law to the best of my ability, and doing everything in my power to show love to those around me. Did Jesus braid a whip and beat the prostitutes and drunks of his day? No. He went to the temple, to those who were practicing a false form of religion, and beat them. He spent so much time with the drunks and prostitutes that He was labeled as one of them by the religious leaders of His day. Does that mean that He was endorsing their lifestyle? Absolutely not! But He saw past the sin, to the sinner in need, and knew that reaming them out for not living a holy life was not the message they needed to hear. "I forgive you, I love you, go and sin no more," was the message they needed. I can't forgive people, I'm not the one who has been sinned against, but I can show them that regardless of their condition or their actions, God loves them.