Brexit and Ecumenism

Brexit is a very big deal. As such, it has been on my mind all day*. The people of Britain have declared their independence from the EU, despite the problems they could gain from leaving: economic, political, etc. They could make enemies and weaken the strength of Europe against large maverick countries such as Russia. But…really, so what? Their independence as a people with their own laws is of tantamount importance. Protecting their borders against the flood of immigrants caused by being a member of the EU is of tantamount importance. I found the vote encouraging. In fact, I was disappointed in Britain when they chose to become a member of the EU — ultimately, because it was a choice for globalism, of casting their lot with countries on their way to bankruptcy — with an EU court that does not have their best interest as a unique nation at heart.

As I have a number of friends who believe the world would be a better place without nations and without borders, I just have to say that I’m not now and never will be an idealist, nor do I think a borderless world would be good for mankind because there are too many ways in which mankind will never come to a consensus — especially among people who have little to no core principles.

As I was thinking about Christian ecumenism yesterday, I was examining the various degrees to which it’s possible or even desirable to have unity among factions that disagree with each other on almost everything but the meaning of the gospel. I’ve seen denominations band together under pro-life banners and work together to offer charity services to pregnant women and women with young children. Their commonality lies in biblical commands and admonitions to help the poor and needy; pooling resources, especially in poor areas of the world where even the Christians offering charity are poor, makes this calling more possible. Most Christian churches also view their work as spreading the gospel, and because the gospel is shared among Christians, this is possible.

However, in this limited context, the ecumenical charity organizations have no power to effect changes on the church denominations that provide workers, nor do the church denominations have to accept charity workers from other denominations. Ecumenism works in this limited way. I believe the same is true of European countries who have shared borders and long histories together (though these shared histories are not always positive) to have some limited unity, in trade or in travel, perhaps. But the “ecumenism,” rather, of the European Union goes beyond that, threatening the basic structure of the individual nations due to unity in immigration, etc.

And then I was considering what ecumenism is not and can never be in the context of religion: a unity among religions in general that do not have a shared commonality of  the gospel of Jesus Christ. There can be no union with other religions because there is no common ground to stand on — different Scriptures, different sources, different motivations. The spread of the gospel is curbed for social and political goals that have little to do with the commands and admonitions of the Bible.

Cool selfie, for example.

                                            Cool selfie, for example.

Although my analogy is limited in the way it equates to nations, I think you catch my drift. European nations have shared histories and cultures; they at least have cultural ties to Christianity that have helped define their court systems and beliefs in the rights of man. If European nations have difficulty banding together under the EU, imagine how much more difficult it would be for nations to band together under a pan European-Asia union, for example? Actually, don’t imagine. That’s what idealists do. It’s much easier to imagine a unified world; it’s another matter entirely to force disunified people to conform to unity. And aside from that, it’s stupid and banal.

*I wrote this post yesterday, but was too exhausted to actually post it when the clock approached the gong of midnight.



Game Developer Barbie

game developer barbie 2

At least she still looks like a supermodel. I guess girls have changed from when I was a child. When I was young, I, along with my friends, just wanted a gorgeous Barbie fashion doll with all the cute clothes we couldn’t afford. Of course I wanted that because I, as a young girl, was playing out my feminine fantasy of catching a really great guy. I never even once fantasized about being a game developer. I did imagine myself as a writer or a private detective when not playing with Barbies — but that was always secondary to marrying a hot guy. The really hot guy fantasy was pretty much paramount. That’s probably why I’m married with four children and a side career of writing and editing. I found what I wished for. May game developer Barbie satisfy all your basic instincts as a female child* — or your wish fulfillment as an adult of being stuck in a stupid career without being as gorgeous as Barbie.

*The creative instinct is universal to humans, and not specific to being a girl or boy, but I’m guessing the creative instinct is not why Barbies have historically been popular with girls, unless we’re talking about the procreative one.


This Election Season…

…we have learned that people are ridiculously short-sighted and will believe any rhetoric fed to them, no matter how absurd. We have also learned that people will vote only for their own self-interests and presume that their self-interests are everybody’s self-interests. Okay, we didn’t just learn that this election season. There is no we, for a start. I wouldn’t want to project. There is a simple I who has been observing this for years. It has gone to the level of the ridiculous this season.

In a philosophical sense, we are all in Plato’s Cave, as we don’t know the true reality of the universe, either physically or spiritually. We are scientists looking at shadows on the wall, and these shadows are very real to us. Take the gun debate issue, for example. If you were to grow up in a poor neighborhood where there is a chronic threat of gun violence, you are going to see the world as an inherently dangerous place where the Democrats, who want to enact more stringent gun laws, are the only reasonable party. Never mind that your neighbors, the ones you are afraid of, are statistically more likely to be Democrats as well.

You are more likely to be Democrat for a variety of reasons. If you are in this poor and violent neighborhood, you are also more likely to live in a big city, where you see that the world is not only a violent place, but an over-populated place. You have most likely not driven through the vast empty spaces of the nation, where you might not meet another human driving a car for miles. No, you see that the world around you is over-crowded, and you believe the rest of the world is the same. Democrats give you peace by feeding your self-interest caches with promises of free birth control, medical care, etc. A neighborhood that is safe, with fewer children who are actually cared for, makes sense to your shadow world of self-interest.

I was not intending to write specifically about Democrats in this post. There is a converse shadow world of Republicans. I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat. However, it just struck me as I was about to write the converse that Republicans are living more in tune with nature. They want to reproduce, and to use guns for self-defense and to bring a prize of meat back to the family they’ve produced. They want to defend their tribe and its borders. Republicans are working off their most basic biological human impulses and Democrats have managed to override theirs.


Rhetoric At Its Best


By the way, this is not racist. Do you know why it’s not racist? Islam isn’t a race; it’s a religion. And, yes, despite our religious freedom, we can ban a religious practice if the religion violates our laws: namely, the enslavement of women and the murder of homosexuals. This meme obviously demonstrates the enslavement of women. And we don’t have to search too far back in our country’s memory to witness the murder of homosexuals who were doing nothing more than drinking together in a bar.


Positive Affirmations

Dear Jill,

I had decided that positive affirmations were the way go, and henceforth began to write, “I’m going to be a bestselling author” on little slips of paper twenty times a day. The only problem is now I have 5000 slips of positive affirmations, which equates to 35,000 words of text, and no book to become a bestseller off of. Do you have any advice for me?

Author in the Southwest

Dear Author in the Southwest,

In my experience, as an editor, 35,000 words is a novella. Congratulations! You have written a book. Cut the slips of paper up by words or letters, scramble them, glue them onto 5.5 X 8.5 pieces of paper, and then scan them into your computer. If you’d like help in turning your novella into an ebook, please see my  fees as laid out here. Writing a book is sometimes difficult, but you’ve ultimately put in the effort, which is all that counts.

Best of luck,