Fair Trade: My Unanswered Questions

October is Fair Trade Month! I will celebrate by explaining what fair trade is, and then asking a few questions I do not yet have answers for.

Image source.

What does "fair trade" mean?

If a product is fair trade certified, it means that it was produced by farmers/workers who received a decent fair wage. Not slaves.

Fair Trade USA certifies the following products: "coffee, tea and herbs, cocoa, fresh fruit and vegetables, sugar, beans and grains, flowers, nuts, oils and butters, honey and spices, wine and apparel". In general, fair trade is mostly for coffee and chocolate. In this blog post, I'm focusing on chocolate, because that's the area where fair trade most affects my life.

Wait a minute- if "fair trade" means the farmers got paid decently for their work, then does "not fair trade" mean it was produced through slavery?

Yeah, that's the big question, isn't it?

First of all, slavery is real. It is estimated that there are 2.5 million victims of human trafficking around the world. Some are sex slaves, and some are doing forced labor.

In particular, there is concern over using children as slaves in the production of chocolate in West Africa. (Note: There is a difference between child labor and child slavery, but I would argue that both should not exist.) 69% of the world's cocoa comes from West Africa, with 35% from Cote d'Ivoire- and child exploitation is a huge concern for cocoa farms in these areas.

Image source.

It's real. Google it.

Okay so you've convinced me that slavery exists in the production of chocolate. But you haven't answered my question: Does chocolate that is NOT labeled as "fair trade" come from slavery?

Well how can we possibly know? They're not going to write that on the packaging. But I get the impression, based on what I've read online, that any cocoa from the Ivory Coast is a little suspicious.

One reason for chocolate slavery is a drop in cocoa prices. Cocoa is an "unstable crop", and a drop in price forces farmers to cut costs, sometimes by resorting to slavery.

So... does that mean normally they treat the workers nice, and then in bad years they beat them up and don't pay them? What is "normally"?

Like, can we get some idea on the percentage of slave-produced cocoa in a Hershey's bar? 10%? 30%? 80%? 100%? And at what percent do I decide it's immoral for me to buy it? At what percent would it be immoral for Hershey to sell it?

If I boycott non-fair-trade chocolate, is that actually helpful?

Yeah, I don't know. To understand how to address the problem of slavery in West Africa, we first have to understand the culture and the causes of slavery. There's not going to be some magical easy solution.

Some in the chocolate industry (maybe they're a little biased) argue that "A ‘slave free’ label would hurt the people it is intended to help because it would lead to a boycott of all Ivory Coast cocoa." If you just don't buy it because you don't know where it came from, what if it mostly came from honest people who paid their workers fairly? Is it right to boycott anything not marked as "fair trade" just because some of it is suspicious? (Again, percentages could be helpful here.)

Of course, one could also argue that when you buy fair trade chocolate, you know for sure that the money goes to paying workers a good wage; you know for sure it's not supporting slavery. Isn't that superior to buying chocolate of suspicious origin?

Not necessarily...

Hey, isn't fair trade a lot more expensive though?

Well, a Green & Black chocolate bar costs about $4, while a Hershey bar of comparable size (ish) costs about $1.

BUT the fair trade chocolate is much higher quality. It's rich, dark chocolate. Is that worth the price difference? The customer can decide that.

So do I have a responsibility to only buy fair trade chocolate?

Yeah, that's the question I'm trying to answer for myself.

The economy of chocolate is incredibly complex- how can I know what effect fair trade products have on workers on the other side of the world? It's much more complicated then "Hey let's fight slavery- everyone buy fair trade! Yay!"

How can I say I know better than Hershey about the ethical way to buy and sell chocolate? I don't know anything. I'm just over here googling stuff.

Even if ordinary chocolate does partially come from slavery, does that mean it's immoral for me to buy it? I don't have an answer.

In conclusion, the effect of me buying a fair trade chocolate bar rather than regular, cheap chocolate is unclear- I honestly can't make an argument that it's immoral to buy regular chocolate. BUT don't use that as an excuse to not take any action against slavery. Yes, I've raised some valid questions and criticism, but in the end, whoever is going around certifying fair trade products is doing A LOT MORE to fight slavery than I am. 

It's easy to sit here at my computer and criticize people who are trying to make a difference in the world- as if implementing an imperfect solution is worse than ignoring the problem entirely.

Fair trade- it's not the magical answer to save the world. It's not something you're REQUIRED to buy in order to not be a terrible person. No, we need a lot more insight into the culture and economy of West Africa in order to combat slavery.

But it's a good start.

Caramel Brownie Recipe (THE BEST EVER!)

This isn't a food blog, but it would be immoral for me not to share this recipe with the world. These brownies are the greatest.

Caramel Brownies

(The following set of directions are explained in great detail, for n00bs like me. Scroll to the bottom for the short version.)

Ingredients:

1 lb caramels- the soft kind that you can melt- not chocolate-covered or anything
1 can evaporated milk (need 5/6 cup, aka 6.7 fl oz)
1 chocolate cake mix- German chocolate is good, Devil's Food is good, whatever, just something with a lot of chocolate
1 cup chocolate chips
3/4 cup melted butter or margarine

Only 5 ingredients. Plus oil to grease the pan.

1. Unwrap all the caramels. (Haha, this is perhaps the most important step.) Melt the caramels and 1/2 cup evaporated milk over low heat. KEEP AN EYE ON THIS! You don't want the caramels to burn. Basically these are going to be melting while you work on the other parts of the recipe. Make sure you stir it a lot. And it needs to be on LOW heat.

(If you realize that mixing the other ingredients/ finding a clean brownie pan/ trying to figure out how the oven works is taking way longer than you expected, take the caramels off the heat for a bit. DON'T BURN THEM!)

If it boils, you're doing it wrong.

2. Mix cake mix, melted butter, and 1/3 cup evaporated milk.
3. Press 1/2 of the cake mixture into a 13x9 greased pan. It may look like there's not enough to cover the entire bottom of the pan. You can use a little more than half if you want, but not too much. Spread it out so it covers the whole bottom of the pan. Also, it's a good idea to put the bowl with the other half of the cake mixture in the fridge, while this is baking.

4. Bake at 350 F for 8 minutes.
5. Sprinkle with chocolate chips.
6. Pour caramel mixture over the chocolate chips. Use a spoon to spread the caramel all around so it covers basically the whole thing.

Protip: If you want the pan to be easy to clean, don't spread the caramel all the way to the edges. The downside of this method is the edge brownies get less caramel. You need to carefully consider your priorities.

7. Crumble the rest of the cake mixture on top of the caramel.
8. Bake at 350 for 18 minutes. The brownies will be really gooey- let them cool all the way before you eat them. Just kidding, no one actually does that. These things are so awesome- no one wants to wait til they're cool.

And if you screw it up, well, how bad can it be? It's full of chocolate and caramel- it will probably still taste awesome. (There have been times I burned the caramels, and it still tasted fine.)

Image source.

And here is the short version of the recipe, without all my commentary and photos:

Ingredients:
1 lb caramels
1 can evaporated milk (need 5/6 cup, aka 6.7 fl oz)
1 chocolate cake mix
1 cup chocolate chips
3/4 cup melted butter or margarine

1. Melt the caramels and 1/2 cup evaporated milk over low heat.
2. Mix cake mix, melted butter, and 1/3 cup evaporated milk.
3. Press 1/2 of the cake mixture into a 13x9 greased pan.
4. Bake at 350 F for 8 minutes.
5. Sprinkle with chocolate chips.
6. Pour caramel mixture over the chocolate chips.
7. Crumble the rest of the cake mixture on top of the caramel.
8. Bake at 350 for 18 minutes.

I Would Only Follow a God Who Was Tempted

I always imagined the devil as a really pale white guy with a black robe and black hair and a pointy black goatee. Now I realize that's because of this illustration in a little-kid bible I used to read:

Source: Early Reader's Bible, 1991.

Some very exciting news today: This bible story (Matthew 4:1-11) is available in the form of a rage comic! Many thanks to An Average Jane for making this. I laughed so much. Go check it out. Anyway, here are my thoughts:

Matthew 4:2 "After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry."

Captain Obvious's favorite bible verse. Image source

But seriously, is that even possible? Fasting for 40 days? Okay, it's October 3- that would be like if I hadn't eaten since August 24. Raise your hand if you even remember what you were doing on August 24. Yeah, me neither.

Yes, it is possible. Apparently the average person can go maybe 8 weeks without food. Hunger strikes (many of them lasting over 50 days) have been used as a form of protest- Gandhi did this.

In this story, satan is talking to Jesus- is that even real?

Whenever I've read this story, I always imagined satan (to whom I give the middle finger of grammar) as a person, talking to Jesus, who's a person. I never even thought to question it.

The devil can't be a person. God became man, and that was a super huge big deal- one of the most powerful and amazing events in the history of the world. I don't think the devil can become a human too. He's not God.

So, there are 2 possibilities for what's going on here:

1. The devil appears to Jesus in the same sort of way angels sometimes appeared in the bible.
2. It's all in Jesus' head.

For option #1, okay, that makes sense- the devil is technically an angel. (Not sure if the bible explicitly says this or not, but it's what I've always heard.) In the bible, whenever an angel showed up, it was very obvious that it was an angel and not a human- and everyone was terrified of them. (For obvious reasons. I'd be super-freaked-out if an angel turned up in my apartment.)

Dude, I was about to put in an image of a weeping angel from Doctor Who, but I got too freaked out just looking at the thumbnails. Instead, have a care bear. Image source.

But I actually lean toward option #2- it was all in Jesus' head. This makes sense because, in my experience, temptation does not come from some glowing scary guy standing next to me, offering bad advice- no, temptation comes from my own mind.

And for the parts where satan takes Jesus to the highest point of the temple, and then takes him to the top of a mountain- I really think it makes more sense to interpret this as a vision that Jesus had, rather than actually physically going to those places. Because how would they get there? Walk? If it takes an hour to walk there, do you think they made small talk along the way? Did satan pick Jesus up and carry him there? I don't think Jesus would submit to that.

Why would Jesus put up with this? Aren't we supposed to flee from temptation? But if it's in his head, he can't escape. And isn't that the way temptation is? It's in my head- it's not some external influence I can just remove from my life.

Hold on perfectnumber, I don't think you're allowed to say this. Are you saying this wasn't real? No. The temptation that Jesus experienced was definitely real. Are you saying the bible isn't true? No. I definitely believe the bible- I'm just trying to figure out what Matthew meant here, based on what else I know about God and temptation and what makes sense.

All right so let's look at the 3 things satan asked Jesus to do:

"If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

satan challenged Jesus to prove his Son-of-God status. Wow, that's pretty insulting- but Jesus didn't take the bait. He knew it would be wrong to turn the stones into bread, even though he could totally do it.

"I'll turn this one into a coffee cake." Image source.

Why is it wrong? Look at Jesus' response. He quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Listening to God was more important than Jesus' physical needs. He had already made a commitment to fasting in order to focus on God the Father.

What would this temptation look like for the average American Christian nowadays? It would be breaking a commitment you've made to God. It would be me realizing I need to pray more, and then spending all my free time reading blogs on teh intarwebz instead.

Some things are more important than blogs and Facebook and whatever other silly things I spend time on. Some things are right up there with physical needs. Christians NEED prayer. Christians NEED the word of God. Jesus needed it too.

The devil quotes Scripture too.

Next, satan takes Jesus to the highest point of the temple (I would argue that this is in a vision) and tells him to jump off, because God will keep you safe. satan quotes Psalm 91:11-12 "He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."

In other words, "You can fly!" Image source.

All 3 times satan makes a dumb suggestion, Jesus replies by quoting the bible. But satan can quote the bible too, as we see here. That's why it's so freakin' important to understand CONTEXT and what the author was trying to say, instead of just taking one verse and declaring "the bible is clear on this." satan's interpretation of this verse is WRONG!

satan is basically telling Jesus to do something stupid and then trust God to save him.

"Being brave doesn't mean you go looking for trouble." Mufasa's words of wisdom. Image source.

This doesn't really seem like a "temptation" to me- it seems more like an incorrect understanding of what faith is. See, Jesus, if you just had more FAITH, you'd jump off. Don't you believe the promise God made in Psalm 91?

And Jesus' answer? He quotes Deuteronomy 6:16 "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." In other words, yeah, maybe God would rescue him if he jumped off. But why even do that? Force God to step in and rescue you because you did something stupid. That's not right.

This reminds me of weird, extreme groups within Christianity who pick up snakes because of that one verse that says you can pick up snakes, or who don't believe in medicine because you should just pray for God to heal you. Again, it's not exactly a "temptation"- it's an incorrect understanding of faith and how God works.

And what about in my own life? What would be an example of doing something stupid and expecting God to support me? If I rushed into another culture, thinking I'm going to bring them the gospel and save them from their stupid, backwards ways- and that of course God would help me. No, that's not how it works. Whether I'm talking to other Americans who don't belong to the internet-geek subculture that I do, or people on the other side of the world, I need to listen and understand them first, instead of just thinking I have all the answers.

As I already said, this one seems weird to me because it's not really a "temptation." I understand "temptation" to be something that you really want to do, but you know you shouldn't, and you try to convince yourself it's really not so bad. But for the "jump off a building and God will save you" case, it's something you DON'T want to do, but your common-sense refusal is taken as a sign that you lack faith. Or maybe you didn't have a "common-sense refusal"- you rushed into something that's way over your head because you genuinely thought God was into that kind of thing. It's a mistake that comes from an incorrect belief about how God works. It's not something "you know you shouldn't do".

Next, the devil asks Jesus to worship him.

Then they go to a mountain and look at "all the kingdoms of the world." This is why I think it was a vision, not real life- where are you going to find a mountain with a view of "all the kingdoms of the world" (or even the kingdoms known to them at that time)? And Jesus had been fasting for 40 days- I'd imagine he's not up for climbing a mountain right now.

satan says, "All this I will give you, if you will bow down and worship me." FYI if this ever comes up in your life, the correct answer is DO NOT worship satan.

What exactly is the temptation here? Jesus was about to start his ministry- which would be characterized by suffering and serving, and eventually getting killed. Wouldn't it be much easier to not do that? He could just get power over the world by worshiping satan (although I have some doubt as to whether satan would keep his end of the deal).

Wait, why doesn't Jesus just fake it? He can bow down- it doesn't really mean anything, whatever. No- honor and shame were a big deal in that culture- it DID mean something.

How does this temptation come up in my life? Sometimes there's an "easy way out". Doing the right thing is hard. But if cutting corners involves doing something I know is wrong, then that's not okay.

The devil finally leaves.

Jesus says "Away from me, satan!" Why didn't he say this earlier? I thought Christians are supposed to avoid situations where there could be temptation. Why doesn't Jesus get serious about kicking him out until the 3rd temptation?

It's almost like Jesus knew his own limits and weaknesses and was confident that he had the situation under control- no need for some huge reaction. Until the idea of worshiping satan comes up- he didn't tolerate that at all.

But I thought Christians are supposed to flee from temptation. As in, at the slightest hint, you GTFO (err... you get out of there). Because you never know what you're capable of. Am I wrong about this, or is Jesus special and doesn't need to be so jumpy and fearful about it?

Or, if it was all in his head, maybe there was no way for him to escape, until the devil gave up.

It's inaccurate to refer to this as "the temptation of Jesus".

Whenever I hear someone make a reference to the fact that Jesus experienced temptation like we do, I think of this story. But that's not right- Jesus lived on earth for 33 years- surely he faced A LOT more temptation than just these 3 explicit suggestions from satan.

Was Jesus *actually* tempted?

There are 2 parts involved in temptation:

1. You get some idea of a bad thing to do.
2. You start to think about it and reason with yourself, thinking maybe you might actually do it.

In this passage, was Jesus at step 1 or step 2? Was he thinking that anything satan says is automatically a bad idea, so just reject it right away, or was he thinking, "ya know, I could make those stones into bread. Wow, that would be really tasty. I could really go for some cinnamon-raisin bread right now. That would actually be pretty cool- it would be like a practice miracle. Yeah... wow, that sounds really delicious..."

There is a HUGE difference. It's so much harder to reject something after you've already imagined what it would be like and made a plan for how to do it.

This really matters to me. What kind of God do I follow? Does my Lord know what that's like- to want something, to really want something, to reason with yourself about whether it's okay, and come to the conclusion that no, no, you absolutely can't do it, no matter how awesome it seems?

Does he know? Does he know? Does Jesus understand?

I need a God who understands. Who knows that there's more to it than "well, that's wrong, don't do it. Duh."

Hebrews 2:18 says, "Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted."

And I believe that's the God I have. My Savior did want to eat those stones. He was slightly offended at the whole "if you are the Son of God" bit. And maybe for a second, he wondered if he could get away with not doing the whole "suffering servant" thing.

Later, Matthew writes about Jesus' power to heal diseases and control the weather. But first we see his power over his own mind, his own desires- and it is this power more than anything else which qualifies him to be the Savior.

----------------

This post is part of a series on the gospel of Matthew.

Previous post: John the Baptist was Kind of Obsessed with Fire (Matthew 3)

Next post: In which Jesus actually starts doing stuff (Matthew 4:12-25)

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.

Blogaround

1. "Every Person Is Afraid of the Drones": The Strikes' Effect on Life in Pakistan (posted September 25)

2. Call It Maybe (NFL Replacement Officials Parody) (posted September 21) I lolled.

"The jumbo screen showed the replay, I missed it so bad, I missed it so bad, I missed it so so bad."

3. The Simple Things (posted September 26) "The church would let me or they're not Christians." Sometimes obeying God is simpler than we'd like.

(Or is it?)

4. Systems, privilege, and the "Top 200 Church Blogs" list (posted September 25) Why using "objective measures" to determine the "top 200 church blogs" inadvertently produces a list dominated by white, straight men.

5. 113,000 Reasons Why We Love Portuguese (posted September 26) Just a reminder that large sections of the internet are not in English. This makes me smile.

6. More thoughts on Salvation and urgency... (posted September 6) "Too often in our modern era, we have seen methods where we urge, plea and coax for people to come to Christ. High pressure tactics or emotional manipulation can be used." As Christians, if we try to pressure people into believing in Jesus, then evidently we do not really believe in the power of the gospel- we think we need to help it along.

7. Brave and the Legacy of the Anti-Princess (posted July 26) Great article if you are a fan of Disney, feminism, and analyzing things. It's about Disney's non-traditional princesses, non-princesses which are inexplicably (*cough* money *cough*) included in the "Disney princess" line, and princesses/ other women which are left out.

8. Modest is Hottest? The Revealing Truth (posted September 27) "If we are teaching the girls in our lives that the primary objective of modesty is to keep themselves covered so boys and men don’t think sexual thoughts about them, then we are teaching girls they are responsible for other peoples’ thoughts and they are primarily sexual objects in need of covering." Yes! (See also my posts on modesty: here and here.)

9. Feminist Odyssey Blog Carnival, Fourth Edition: Faith & Feminism (posted September 28) Lots of blog posts on the topic of "faith and feminism"- many of them by feminist Christians.

Measure words are totally not that bad

We now come to reason #471 that Mandarin is impossible to learn: measure words.

What are measure words?

You can think of measure words as putting units on the nouns you're talking about. English uses them sometimes too- for example, you have a bowl of soup, a pair of pants, a slab of concrete, a cup of coffee, a piece of paper, a bouquet of flowers.

But the difference is that in Chinese, every noun has a measure word that's supposed to go with it.

Here are the common ones I can think of offhand:

个 (gè) - The most common measure word (absolutely no question about this). I would guess that 70% of the time you use a measure word, you use 个.
本 (běn) - for books
只 (zhǐ) - for many kinds of animals- dogs, cats, lions, monkeys, etc etc.
张 (zhāng) - for large, flat things- a piece of paper, a photo, a table, a bed
条 (tiáo) - for long things- pants, fish, roads

All of these things are measured in 条. Images from: here, here, and here.

But actually, you don't need measure words as much as you might think.

Chinese grammar is incredibly different than English grammar. The best way I can describe it is this: In Chinese you need way less words than you'd think.

Chinese doesn't have a direct translation for "the" and "a". A lot of times you don't need to put a "the" or "a" in front of a noun- you just say the noun. It's simple.

I learned the word 书 (shū), which means book, pretty early in my Chinese 101 class. We did not learn the measure word for books, 本 (běn), until maybe a year later. Why? Because you can totally talk about books in a way that's grammatically correct without ever needing the measure word.

Seriously. Chinese is easy. Or incredibly confusing. Take your pick.

Okay, when DO I use measure words then?

You definitely need them if you're counting. You can ask someone how many 本 (běn) of books they have, and they would answer 1 本 (běn), 2 本 (běn), etc. (Which just means 1 book, 2 books, etc.)

Or if you point at something and say "this one" and "that one", the word "one" gets translated as the measure word for that object. Again, with the books example and the most literal translation possible, someone could say "Bring me my Chinese book" (no 本 (běn) required in this sentence) and the other person could ask "Is it this 本 (běn)?" (Meaning, "Is it this one?")

(I'm sorry if this is incredibly convoluted and confusing. Please ask for clarification! I feel like I have a really unique perspective on this, since my first language is English, and I hope it means I can explain Chinese grammar to English-speaking people effectively. But sometimes I don't remember what it's like to not know any Chinese.)

Sometimes it's very very important to get the measure word right.

Now you might be thinking, "Okay, if 1 本 (běn) of books just means 1 book... basically every measure word just means you have 1 of those things, whatever the thing may be, so what does it matter? They all mean the same thing."

Yes, this is true. Most of them don't have a super-special meaning which requires you to pick out the correct measure word. That's why you can always use 个 (gè), if you don't know the "right" measure word, and it'll be fine. It's not grammatically right, but everyone knows what you're saying. See, the measure words are not such a huge obstacle.

However, sometimes the measure word does have a certain meaning, or a certain subtle "feel" to it.

For example, you'd normally use 个 (gè) when talking about people. There are 3 个 (gè) of people in my lab. (Meaning, there are 3 people in my lab.)

But if you are being a little bit more formal/polite, you use 位 (wèi). When you arrive at a restaurant, the waiter might ask you how many 位 (wèi) of people are in your group. (Meaning, how many people are in your group?)

And if you're asking someone about their family, you often ask how many 口 (kǒu) of people are in their family. 口 (kǒu) literally means mouth. (Yes, it is a box. It looks like a mouth. Chinese characters really do make a lot of sense.) In other words, how many mouths to feed?

And sometimes, using different measure words gives a slightly different meaning. For example, 课 (kè) means class. There are 2 different measure words associated with 课 (kè), and they have different meanings. One 节课 (jié kè) is one class session. One 门课 (mén kè) is the course itself, which lasts for the whole semester. So you might ask someone how many 节课 (jié kè) they have on a particular day, and how many 门课 (mén kè) they have in a particular semester. Your question will be interpreted slightly differently depending on which measure word you use.

And sometimes the measure word has a very specific, concrete meaning- it literally is the units on the noun. For example, a 分钟 (fēn zhōng) is a minute, and a 秒钟 (miǎo zhōng) is a second. 分 (fēn) and 秒 (miǎo) are both measure words (钟 (zhōng) means... uh... clock? Something related to time? It's hard to translate...), and they both translate perfectly into the English words "minute" and "second".

(Though I need to throw in the caveat that 分 (fēn) has some other meanings too... Translation is hard, guys.)

Conclusion

Measure words are nothing to be scared of. You actually don't need them as much as one might imagine, because Chinese grammar is simpler than English. Also, when in doubt, just use 个 (gè) and everyone understands what you mean, no problem.

But when you start to learn the nuances of the different measure words, the slight (or big) differences in meaning, it's fascinating. Measure words are not a barrier towards speaking and understanding Chinese- they are just one of many eye-opening ways that Chinese is different than English. As a beginner, you can use 个 (gè) and there's no barrier in understanding, but as you learn more and more, it will feel more natural to use the correct measure words.

I love how different languages have wildly different structures, different ways of thinking, different feelings. It's awesome and mind-blowing that Chinese grammar can be so completely different from English. The differences do not make foreign languages impossible- they make them irresistible.

Click here for more posts about learning Mandarin.

What Sin Is. And Is Not.

You say you're a good person, well have you ever told a lie before? Have you lied even one time? Have you ever stolen something? Jesus said lust is like adultery- have you ever looked at another person with lust? Jesus said anger is like murder- have you ever been unreasonably angry with someone?

Maybe once or twice? Ahh, see, you are a sinner, deserving of God's judgment.

Hold up. That is not what sin is.

So often when Christians try to explain why people need God, they use this line of reasoning. Have you ever done something mean, even one time in your life? See, you are a sinner.

That's not what sin is.

Why did Jesus come and die for us? Is it because we're all good people who have occasionally made mistakes? Yeah, if it wasn't for that one time when you were 4 years old and you hit your sister and then lied to your parents about it, you'd be good to go- Jesus wouldn't be able to say anything to you.

Remember that road trip from 1995? That's why you're not going to heaven. Image source.

No.

So what is sin? Sin is not an isolated event, an out-of-character mistake. Sin is a moment where my deeply-rooted selfishness, pride, and distrust towards God suddenly breaks through to the surface.

Sin is my realization that the real reason I doubted was I didn't want to obey God. Sin is my lack of respect toward people who disagree with me. Sin is my gut reaction that says I need to get revenge against someone who was mildly rude toward me. Sin is my desire for control over boys- if I have power over them, they can't break my heart. Sin is when I judge people, over and over and over, I judge people and I don't even realize how wrong I am.

Sin is every little pattern in my thoughts and actions that should make me stop and question, "What kind of person am I, when this kind of stuff is coming out of my heart?"

Because I have found, at a very basic fundamental level, I don't want to trust God. And even though I really do want to help people, be a good friend, etc, I also don't want to. It's too much work.

Paul said it best, in Romans 7:21-24. "So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God- through Jesus Christ our Lord! ..."

Because the reason I need Jesus to save me is not because due to a set of unusual circumstances, I lied, 10 years ago, and now God has that on my permanent record. I need Jesus to save me from my selfishness every day of my life. I need Jesus to save me because I am the kind of person who can easily become obsessed with money. I need Jesus to save me because some days I just don't feel like caring about other people.

Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God- through Jesus Christ our Lord.

John the Baptist was Kind of Obsessed with Fire

John the Baptist was a hippie who talked about fire a lot. Or something like that. Read the story here: Matthew 3.

Here are my thoughts and observations about this passage:

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

This is John's main message. What does it mean? "Repent" means to quit doing bad things, and to completely leave behind that lifestyle.

Is John saying "Hey, you're a bad person. Repent, because God is coming"? I don't like this way of wording it because it's an accusation that seems to come out of nowhere, and people are going to be angry and feel judged.

If I were putting a positive spin on this, I would say, "Do you feel dissatisfied/alone/anxious/stuck/depressed/guilty? God doesn't want you to live that way- God has something way better. Repent of your sin and get ready."

In the context of the culture John was in, how would people have understood his message, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near"? As condemnation, as an exciting opportunity for change, or maybe something else entirely?

Whatever it was, his message was effective. Verses 5-6 say that "Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan" went to see him and confessed their sins and were baptized. The "all" thing doesn't literally mean every single person who lived there- but still, a ton of people. Evidently, his followers believed that he was right- they needed to repent and get ready for what God was about to do.

"Prepare the way for the Lord"

Matthew says that John the Baptist is the one described by the prophesy in Isaiah 40:3 "A voice of one calling: 'In the desert prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.'"

The purpose of John's preaching was to prepare people to follow Jesus. He did this by emphasizing their need to turn from their sin. Perhaps this shows that in order to follow Jesus, we must first be humble enough to recognize our need for God.

Well, did it work? Did John help people find Jesus and believe in him? Yes- years after John's death, his influence was still helping people find Jesus:

Acts 18:24-26

Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Acts 19:1-7

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.

Both of these passages take place when the church began to grow, after Jesus' death and resurrection. Apollos and these 12 men at Corinth believed in John's message and were baptized by him (or possibly his followers), but they didn't know much about Jesus or the Holy Spirit. However, they knew that John was pointing the way to someone who was supposed to come after him, so when they heard the full story about Jesus, they believed.

Why does Matthew mention that John ate locusts?

This just seems weird. It makes for a good illustration in little-kid bibles, but seriously, why does Matthew include this line about "John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey"?

So basically he's a weird hippie/ cult leader...? Was this a publicity stunt? Was he weird so that people would talk about him and maybe come hear what he had to say?

I did a google image search for "eat locusts" and then noped right out of there. Instead, meet Lego John the Baptist. Image source.

John was not a fan of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

He calls them "vipers" and uses some imagery of trees being chopped down and burned. Why?

The Pharisees and Sadducees were the religious leaders, and it seems that John was calling them out because they believed "we have Abraham as our father" so they didn't need to repent. What does he mean by "we have Abraham as our father"? It could refer to their Jewish ancestry, or their obedience to Jewish laws.

John calls them out because they think they know God better than everyone else, and they're so awesome and don't need to repent. He's pretty harsh; this stuff about the trees getting "cut down and thrown into the fire" is scary.

John tells us what Jesus will be like.

In verses 11-12, John predicts that "after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Wow, John talks a lot about fire- a symbol of judgment. Jesus- the one who comes after John- would separate the wheat from the chaff, good people from bad people (however you define "good" or "bad" people...).

The kingdom of heaven is near! Repent, and get a fire extinguisher. Image source.

I don't like to talk about God's judgment. It's real, but it's scary. And it seems that John is saying Jesus is all about judgment. John even judges himself- he says he is not worthy to pick up Jesus' shoes.

Did Jesus come to judge people? In some sense, yes, but when you read the gospels you see Jesus teaching and healing and accepting and loving people- how does this fit in with judgment? I guess we'll find the answer to this as we read further along in the gospel of Matthew.

Jesus' baptism

Then Jesus shows up and wants to get baptized. John tells him this clearly makes no sense, but then Jesus says, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." John had no idea what that meant, so he just went along with it.

Seriously though, what DOES that mean? "Fulfill all righteousness"???

After Jesus gets baptized, the Holy Spirit comes "like a dove" and lands on him, and a voice says "This is my son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." That's pretty epic and awesome, but what does it mean?

We have the 3 parts of the Trinity- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit- coming together, with the Father showing his approval as Jesus starts his ministry.

Does this mean that before his baptism, Jesus did not have the Holy Spirit? So Jesus did not have as much power? Maybe? I don't know the significance of the Spirit coming "like a dove" landing on Jesus.

Why does Jesus need to get baptized?

Because isn't baptism supposed to be about repenting from sin? And Christians believe Jesus did not sin. So... why does he get baptized?

A few reasons I thought of:

1. To set an example for Christians. (Fun fact: I got baptized a year ago.)
2. To show his approval for John's work.
3. As a sign of submission/obedience to God the Father.

Any more reasons?

Summary/ take-home message:

I love how John the Baptist was able to point people to Jesus, and his influence was still there years after his death. I hope that I can also show people who Jesus is- and maybe they won't believe until years later, but that's still awesome.

But I'm uncomfortable with how much John talked about fire and judgment. I don't want to judge people.

Perhaps it is possible to ask people to repent without judging them- without saying I'm better than anyone. John's message to EVERYONE was about their need to repent, and he was harsh only toward the religious people who thought they didn't have to. John even thought of himself as unworthy to carry Jesus' shoes. He warned about God's judgment, but he didn't judge people. If that makes sense.

Christians should take John's warning seriously- do we think we're automatically good, like the Pharisees and Sadducees did? Do we forget our own sin and need for God? Do we think we're better than other people?

And somehow, John's message of repentance and the kingdom of God was exactly what people needed to hear. John prepared the way for Jesus, and I hope I can do that too.

--------------------------------------

This post is part of a series on the gospel of Matthew.

Previous post: God became man... and babies died for it (Matthew 2:13-23)

Next post: I Would Only Follow a God Who Was Tempted (Matthew 4:1-11) 

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.

Blogaround

1. Identity Mapping? (posted September 11) About the "wives, submit to your husbands" passages: "In that particular context, marriages were not typically entered into by men and women of similar ages and with similar life experience, but by adolescent girls (aged 14-15 or so) and fully adult men (aged 28-30 or so). ... For me to treat my wife as though she were less wise, discerning, mature, knowledgeable or apt to lead than I am would be insulting and a failure to recognize and love her for who she really is."

2. The 47 Percent, In One Graphic (posted September 18) 47% of Americans pay no income taxes, and this article explains that with some nice charts.

3. Because everyone deserves clean water (posted September 18) 7-year-old Tariku Savage, who was born in Ethiopia, then moved to the US when he was adopted, is asking people to donate money to build a well in Rwanda. This is especially interesting because he actually experienced life with contaminated water for 4 years- his perspective is incredibly unique. So go over there and donate to him.

4. ShePonders: Jezebel (posted September 18) "And now I wonder- do I have Jezebel's appetite in me? As a woman raised amid affluence, do I want more than my fair share? Do I consume copious amounts of stuff while others languish in hunger?"

5. True Love Does More Than Just Wait (posted September 18) This. Go read this! This is THE BEST article I have ever seen about purity. It's about all the problems with the philosophy "don't have sex, just hold out until you get married and then the sex will be TOTALLY AWESOME and solve ALL YOUR PROBLEMS!!!1!!!1" Instead of being "pure" so we can get "reward sex" someday, how about we don't have sex because we're obedient to God, and self-denial builds character?

6. Dear Mitt Romney, Here's My 47% Story (posted September 18) "As for my 'entitlement' to the health care that I received during that pregnancy, I felt no such entitlement. I simply needed it. I felt shame then, and it angers me that you are still shaming me now, nine years later. Without that medical coverage, Mr. Romney, I would have died."

7. Why No One Cares About the White Jesus of Mitt Romney's Mormonism (posted September 9) "Historically, America's Jesus has been white without words, because whiteness needs no description. It is blackness, of the kind so prominently displayed by Jeremiah Wright's sermons replayed in 2008, that anger and trouble people, and thus need explanation."

8. Being Poor (posted in 2005) "Being poor is making sure you don't spill on the couch, just in case you have to give it back before the lease is up." And a lot of other images. Go read this- it's profound.

9. A Convenient and Relaxing Kind of Christianity (posted September 20) "Cruise control" obedience means we "don't have to experience the fatigue that comes with seeking to obey Him with all our heart, soul, and mind." And that's not good enough.

10. Faith and Hope, 20% off! (posted July 2011) "And I'd have to smile, and take them over to the Harry Potter Is Evil!!!! section (right next to the Harry Potter Is A Christ Analogy And Totally Biblical!!!! section), and chat happily about how evil Harry Potter was..."

11. Disruptive faith (or, why we choose karma over grace) (posted September 11) "If the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob turns out to be real, my hope of maintaining order and control is forever lost."

12. "Creepshots" and revenge pornography latest frontiers in war against women (posted September 22) "Emma Watson has said that on her 18th birthday she realised that 'overnight I'd become fair game... One photographer lay down on the floor to get a shot up my skirt. The night it was legal for them to do it, they did it. I woke up the next day and felt completely violated.'"

13. Pregnant Rape Victims: Quit Assuming We Want an Abortion (posted September 21) "On the other side are those who perpetuate the myth that women and girls who become pregnant from sexual assault overwhelmingly want, need and benefit from having abortions. This also hurts women and fans the flames of prejudice toward those who do not want to have an abortion, even leading some to question whether a woman or girl who wishes not to abort has 'really' been raped."

God became man... and babies died for it

As a little kid hearing the Christmas story, I remember being frightened at the idea of King Herod trying to kill Baby Jesus- how could someone kill a baby? And I was relieved to hear that Jesus' family escaped. I never realized that some of the other babies didn't.

Read the whole story here: Matthew 2:13-23.

My thoughts and observations:

Joseph as the leader of the family

It's very interesting that God directs Jesus' family to move by speaking to Joseph in a dream. Why didn't he speak to both Joseph and Mary? Why did he give such important, urgent instructions in such an internal, personal form, completely impossible for others to observe? How was Mary supposed to know if this message was really from God, or Joseph is just crazy?

"Joseph, what did you eat before bed?" Image source.

It meant that Joseph was the leader, the protector of Mary and her baby, and that God fully accepted him as the leader. I think this is very important- Joseph wasn't Jesus' real father, so he may have felt like he wasn't really part of God's plan- he just happened to be there. But no, God gave Joseph an incredible role- God depended on Joseph to keep Jesus safe.

(Or maybe I'm reading too much into this, and the real reason was everyone was horribly sexist back then- OF COURSE God would speak to the man, OF COURSE the wife had to do everything her husband said, even if he got the idea from some unverifiable dream. But I'd really like to think it's God's way of showing Joseph he's fully accepted and essential to God's plan.)

Herod is the most terrible person

King Herod gives orders to kill any male child 2 years old or under. Because he heard that the "king of the Jews" had been born, and he felt it was a threat to his power. Seriously?

I found some sources that say Herod also had his own wife and a few of his sons killed, and other people too, whenever he felt like it. Apparently kings used to just kill everybody. This guy is seriously messed-up.

Did he actually believe that "the king of the Jews" had been born, like the wise men said? Or was he just really paranoid? Did he kill those babies just in case it actually was true?

How could God let this happen?

Oh no, King Herod wants to kill all the baby boys in Bethlehem! Fortunately, God knew about it- God intervened... and saved 1 of them.

Seriously?

I tend to think that God allows bad things to happen because he has a policy of not intervening, in general. God set things up so that people's actions have consequences, and he's not going to come micromanage everything. But in this case, he is willing to intervene- why didn't he intervene a little better?

I've always been skeptical of people concluding that surely it was God who stepped in and rescued someone, when so many others died- it just doesn't make sense to me- why didn't God just prevent the entire disaster? But that's exactly what happened here. And I don't like it. God, you allowed them to kill babies?

God saves his own kid, and leaves everyone else behind. What happened to putting others before yourself?

Some people might blame this on the wise men.

I can imagine there are some who say this is the wise men's fault. Because they're the ones who told King Herod about the whole "king of the Jews" thing. They should have been following the star all the way to Bethlehem; they should have never stopped at Jerusalem. It shows they didn't trust God. It shows they thought God's kingdom was an earthly kingdom, and his king must be in the capital city, Jerusalem.

See, the wise men didn't trust God, and their horrible horrible sin is the reason those babies died.

Jerks. Image source.

No! NO! Why do we always need to find someone to blame? This happened because King Herod was insecure and had way too much power- that's all.

"It's the wise men's fault" comes from the idea that the world is just and if we just did the right thing, bad things wouldn't happen. But that's not true. Sometimes bad things happen, and it's completely out of our control.

And was it really so unreasonable for the wise men to stop at Jerusalem and ask around? Was it really so horrible and evil and sinful that they assumed the new king would be in the capital city? You really think it shows a deep distrust of God? It was just a mistake. That's all. Just a factual error that was then corrected. It's not a sin, and it definitely does not make them responsible for those babies' deaths.

Some "prophecies" were "fulfilled".

Or were they?

Matthew mentions 3 prophecies in this passage. Let's look at them:

"Out of Egypt I called my son."- from Hosea 11:1. Okay, if you go read Hosea 11:1, it's obvious the "son" is the nation of Israel. Hosea is talking about how God brought Israel out of Egypt, and God cared for them but they rejected him, so he warns them about punishment.

"A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."- from Jeremiah 31:15. Jeremiah 31 is about the celebration that will happen when God brings his people back from exile and shows kindness to them. The part about "Rachel weeping" refers to the mourning over those who had been killed or captured when the exile happened- and God says he will comfort them and end their weeping and start this whole new era of awesomeness.

Who is Rachel? She was one of Jacob's wives, and she had some troubles in life, so she is a symbol for the suffering of the Jewish people. (See Genesis 29-30, 35.)

"He will be called a Nazarene."- This is totally not a quote from the Old Testament. The commentary I looked at suggested that prophets had predicted the messiah would have humble beginnings, and Nazareth was a hick town in the middle of nowhere, so it fulfills the prophecy.

Perhaps they did this in Nazareth too? Image source.

So, none of these are actual legit prophecies being fulfilled (according to perfectnumber628's definition of "prophecy"). The first two are about things that happened in the past, plus they come from passages that are totally talking about something else (warning of punishment on the nation, and a promise of a new covenant). Reading Hosea or Jeremiah, you wouldn't even think they were prophecies at all. And the third one isn't even an actual quote.

We should think of these not as "prophecies being fulfilled", but as themes that consistently run through the whole bible. God brought the Israelite people out of Egypt, and God brought Jesus out of Egypt. God sees and understands the pain of the mothers of Bethlehem, just like he saw the mourning during the exile. And the messiah would be someone who didn't seem too remarkable, so it makes sense that he's from Nazareth.

The problem is that you can't use this to prove anything. Anyone can come up with similarities between Jesus' life and some stories from the Old Testament- so what? It doesn't mean he's the messiah.

So what's the point of prophecies?

These 3 prophecies that Matthew mentions cannot be used in an argument about whether Jesus is the Son of God. Their purpose is not to convince you to believe- their purpose is to show you that, given the assumption that Jesus is the Son of God, there are some pretty sweet connections you can make between his life and God's work in the Old Testament.

And here's another connection: As babies, both Jesus and Moses narrowly escaped being killed, when orders were given to kill male children.

Are all biblical prophecies like this? Are there ANY that can actually be used as evidence to argue that Jesus is the messiah?

Summary/ take-home message:

In this passage, we see God working and a few good things happening- Joseph takes on the role of protector for Mary and Jesus, Jesus is kept safe, themes from God's work in history reappear. But when God works and good things happen, there is opposition- from King Herod, maybe even from satan. Jesus came into the world, and it cost some other children their lives.

Perhaps it means that the world is so broken and intrinsically opposed to God that when God does something miraculous and wonderful- sending Jesus to earth- the world itself reacts against it.

In other words, this is why we can't have nice things.

Or maybe I'm trying too hard to find meaning in this tragedy. Maybe bad things happen, and there is no huge, cosmic explanation- it's just because Herod was a scumbag, that's all.

----------------

This post is part of a series on the gospel of Matthew.

Previous post: The Wise Men Found Jesus In Another Religion (Matthew 2:1-12)

Next post: John the Baptist was Kind of Obsessed with Fire (Matthew 3)

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.

How NOT to Write About Abstinence

If I had read Waiting till the wedding night- getting married the right way (posted September 14) a few years ago, I would have agreed with it, thought "yeah, I'm definitely not having sex until I get married", and moved on with life without noticing anything wrong with the article.

Without noticing all the judging. Without considering how it might come across to people who disagree.

The writer blatantly says he is judging people who disagree. "We did it right. Feeling judged? I couldn't care less."

And the reason I might have read that and thought nothing of it is because I'd never heard the other side. I didn't grasp that REAL PEOPLE believe that it's normal to have sex without being married, and they have reasons for that, and a lot of those people are my friends. In mainstream American culture, abstinence is generally seen as silly.

And yes, Christianity told me about that- so many warnings about "the world does it this way"- but "the world" always felt like some big vague thing way out there somewhere, maybe on TV- not real people I might actually interact with, who have real lives and real reasons for believing what they believe.

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it is clearly a trap. Image source.

So when I read that article, I thought maybe the author doesn't know how it comes across. (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.) Maybe a lot of Christians (including me) are sheltered and don't realize how the things we say or believe get interpreted by our friends/ random strangers on the internet.

And how does it come across? Well, look at some of these responses: Redditors on r/TwoXChromosomes are angry and call him out on his judging. Jezebel mocks the article. Bloggers point out the flaws and hypocrisy of Christian purity culture and share about their own relationships, which are apparently "the wrong way".

And my response? I agree with a lot of what this guy believes. But I also see how it was received by the citizens of the internet, how they were hurt and offended and angry, and I agree with them too.

I plan to not have sex until I get married. (Haha, I refuse to use the term "waiting". I'm not "waiting" for anything- my life is awesome right now, thank you very much.) And I have a lot of reasons for that, based in Christianity and logic and my emotions, and I think it's a good decision. I think it's a good decision for me and other people too, and I'm happy to explain why, and I'm happy to listen to people's concerns about sexual compatibility and such. If we disagree, I'm not going to say "I'M TOTALLY JUDGING YOU" and tell them how much I pity them for ruining their life by making such a bad decision.

There's no need to judge. Virginity does not make you superior to anyone else. Instead, how about we present the reasons for and against having sex before marriage, listen to different points of view, and respect that people may have good reasons to disagree?