Roles of political leadership

A law...

When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.

- Deuteronomy 17.14-20

And a warning...

...they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."

Then Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Everyone go back to his town."
     

      - 1 Samuel 8.6-22

I found it interesting that the provisions for a king was already outlined when Israel was still in the desert. I tuned in on this part as I was reading a friend's blog earlier, where he is talking about early Chinese emperors and how the early kings avoided extravagance and instead opted for a simple life style. A life of servitude. The modern government is also designed to do that; centralizing power and serving the people. Although I'm, in general, tempted to bash our governments for endless bickering and finger pointing (as oppose to actually solving problems), I will refrain. Having been in leadership roles, I recognize that it's hard to draw a compromise and meet everyone's ideas. It leads to a greater question of...should a governmental leader let his own beliefs and biases colour his political decisions?

Who do we elect?
The current Canadian Prime Minister, Steven Harper, is a Christian (denominational Alliance, actually. I was a bit surprised. I thought Alliance people were all Chinese, haha). We've already established that the government's job is to serve the people. Do we elect governments that will listen to the public and implement changes are appropriate? Or do we elect a person because we want certain agendas to be met in the country?

Most people would probably reply the latter, but with expectations that the former would happen (especially if your particular needs are not being met by the existing platforms). Are these two ideals not contradicting?

Political leader of another kind
It is expected that Harper would behave "Christianity" while he's in office, and table bills and appoint others with Christian ideals. People rant when that does not happen. So what if we ended up with another type of leader? What if we had a pro-communist leader that was elected in because not enough people voted? Or a fifth column effect occured? Surely, we would protest and break windows and firebomb police cars (you knew a G20 reference was coming) and complain that democracy is being destroyed.

So now...you WOULDN'T want the political leaders to implement their beliefs. So then...what should these people do? As a leader, you're often stuck with trying to set up the system so that it meets the needs of the maximum amount of people. If the people are unhappy, you're simply removed from power, and can't influence the system anymore. A very real case of how you can't please everyone.

Okay. So what?
Not really trying to advance any agenda. Part of this post came from the amusing Bible passages, where God laid down the rules before a king came into the picture, as if He already knew it'll happen. Part of this post came up from the annoyance at the knee-jerk reaction commentaries (and the knee-jerk reaction to these reactions) I tend to find on CBC when the government does something stupid. Part of this post comes from lack of voter turnout and how many people choose not make informed votes. Another part came from the frustration at the G20 protests. As another friend noted, I'm a loss to where these anarchists came from. Sigh...

Verses on Marriage

A non-Christian friend of mine asked me to assemble the passages of the Bible that talks explicitly about marriage/relationship/etc. While I was thinking about the meaning of marriage in Christian context, it occurred to me that it is difficult to talk about marriage without talking first about Christ. So I set out to write about Christ first, but then I was asked to find marriage passage for another friend who is getting married this August. So now I have a document full of marriage verses. So...lets see what we can do with this...

Genesis 2 - God created marriage

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

- Genesis 2.18-24

This here is the first marriage. Even though all the animals were around, God specifically said "it is not good for the man to be alone." Adam knew about all the animals. He named them all. But no suitable helper was found for Adam. So God had to make one. So when Christian folks talk about how marriage is between one man and one women, this is it here.

Matthew 19 - Divorce?
One will note that polygamy is fairly common in the Old Testament. Although God did not explicitly forbid polygamy (or divorce, for that matter), it wasn't part of His original plan. What God wanted was marriage to be one-on-one and long lasting. Jesus was challenged about the OT divorce laws (Deuteronomy 24.1), so He interpreted the Law properly, as follows:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

- Matthew 19.2-12 (emphasis mine)

Why adultery? Marriage is a contract ("covenant", in Christian lingo). It is an agreement between a dude and a girl. The marriage vows that are cited, "to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part." It is an agreement to take care of each other regardless or what happens. In modern day, most contract/agreement are finalized by a signature. Or the transfer of money. Handshake. Handing someone else your shoe (I am totally serious). For marriage, the contract sign is sexual intercourse. Sex was intended to be shared only between a husband and his wife. So adultery means that the contract has been breached, thus divorce is allowed. Of course, adultery is also forbidden, in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20.14). Marriage is serious stuff.

This is why Christians are against no-fault divorce. What about abusive relationships? I'll comment on that later on.

1 Timothy 3 - Arguments against polygamy

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

- 1 Timothy 3.1-7 (emphasis mine)

So a leader in the church is a good thing. Paul says it is a noble task. We are called to be leaders, so these words, we should pay attention to. One wife, eh. Though, this isn't too hard to convince, given that Canadian society has anti-polygamy laws.

Leviticus 18 - What's wrong with homosexual marriage?
Bibically speaking? Nothing. Sort of. The Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. So anything else should not be called a marriage. But that's just a definition. I suspect that the reason why the average Christian is against homosexual marriage and call it a sin stems from this passage:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 

- Leviticus 18.27

So the Law is against homosexual sex, and not necessarily against male-male union/relationships. But read this verse in context with the rest of Leviticus 18. Leviticus 18 is against all sorts of sexual relationships, like don't sleep with your mother, or your aunt, or your brother's wife. Or a woman having her period. Or with animals.

Don't have a lot of thoughts about this field, so I can't comment too much about it, but as a scientist, I don't know if homosexual attraction is genetic or a choice. Based on what I've read, I'm more inclined to say that homosexuality is a choice, and will liken "struggling with homosexuality" similar to "struggling with pornography"...

But before anyone attacks homosexuals for their lifestyle, I will point out that there are very few verses against homosexuals (others include Romans 1.26-27 and certain translations of 1 Timothy 1.9-10 and 1 Corinthians 6.9-11), as oppose to the many, many verses against fornication, adultery and divorce. Be mindful of one's planks (Matthew 7).

EDIT: Adding a bit more thoughts, after getting some comments about my post being ambiguous. It is very clear what God had intended marriage and sexual union to be. It was designed to be shared between a husband and a wife. Anything else and everything else is sin. As noted in above passages, that includes incest, bestiality and yes, homosexuality. The point I wanted to make was...the church has many issues of it's own. Divorce and issues with child-raising, for example. Be quicker to tend to the issues within the church before groups outside.   

Ephesians 5 - Relationship in a marriage

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church - for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

- Ephesians 5.22-33

Okay. Fun passage. But before we can dig into that one, we'll have to outline what Christ did, to understand how Christ relates to the Church. A quick recap, then, of the Gospel message...

As you may have noticed from Jesus' Matthew 19 re-interpretation of divorce laws (Jesus is full of these re-interpretations of the Old Testimant Law, ie Sermon of the Mount of Matthew 5-7), Jesus' entry into the world also served as a re-interpretation of the meaning of marriage. Jesus came as God's servant (Isaiah 42.1-9), to "proclaim freedom for the captives" (Isaiah 61.1). That is, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6.23), and that man cannot earn his own salvation because he will ultimately fall short of the perfection demanded by God (Romans 3.9-20). So Christ came to preach repentance (Matthew 4.17) so that people will be aware of their depravity. In order to pay for the wages, Christ dies on our behalf to turn aside the wraith of God (Romans 5.12-17) so that we can live a transformed life in righteousness (Romans 6.16-18).

So Jesus died for the Church (Christian believers) so that they don't have to. He died, taking the punishment of our wrong-doings so that God will see us as holy and righteous (Ephesians 5.25-27).

In a marriage, it is expected that the husband be the "head" (lead) of the marriage. It does not mean that the man is better (wrote about this before, see here). Just that he is responsible for the marriage. If his family screws up, God will hold the husband responsible. The husband is expected to love his wife as Christ loved the Church (that is...be willing to sacrifice everything for her, even death on a cross). He must love his wife as he loves himself. He is expected to look to Christ as the example: love, caring and obedient to the Word of God (Philippians 2.1-11). He is not to abuse his headship, and certainly no abuse is permitted.

In response, the wife is called to be submissive. Once again, this does not mean the wife is worth less or has no say. The wife's first duty is to God, not to her husband. If her husband screws up, it is her job to know that he screwed up and to confront him about it. She is to submit only if her husband is godly and bibically sound. The point of all this is to arrange some form of order in the family. The husband will lead, as long as he maintains the qualifications to lead.

At the end of the day, the marriage union is an analogy, representing Christ and His Church. The analogy is limited in that Christ is perfect and man is not. But a good marriage is designed to glorify God, which is the Christian mandate. It all goes back to God.

A few other notable verses
Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 talks about how "it is good for a man not to marry" (1 Cor 7.1b), since there are less distractions for the man/woman so they can serve God without reservation. Paul also talks a bit more in Romans 7.1-6, relating the marriage union to our relationship with Christ. There are many comparisons between Israel's rebellion against God in the OT (idol worship), and God typically accuses Israel of adultry. An example of this is though the prophet Hosea. Lastly, in Malachi, God says this:

Didn’t the LORD make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his. And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard your heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth. “For I hate divorce!” says the LORD, the God of Israel. “To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies. “So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife.”

- Malachi 2.15-16 (NLT)

More resources
Much of what I've written here, I've heard from other resources. Mostly sermons or conference recordings, but also some books as well. Those speakers are much more capable than I, and I would point to them. I've read/heard about half of these, whereas the others were recommended by others.

• The 722 series on Love and Marriage (Voddie Baucham) - very excellent series, let me know if you're interested
• Peasant Princess series, MH Blog series (Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill Church) - heard only a few sermons from the PP series. I've heard other Mark Driscoll stuff on this topic (like this one and this one), and he generally agrees with Voddie
• A guy/girl's guide to marring well (Boundless) - a good read. not too long
• Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, This Momentary Marriage and Sex and the Supremacy of Christ (John Piper) - haven't read, but suppose to be good. John Piper also has sermons on this topic, but I haven't listened to any of his stuff on this yet
• God, Marriage, and the Family (Andreas Kostenberger) - haven't read this either, but it's endorsed by Driscoll, so it should be decent
• Boy meets girl (Joshua Harris) - interesting ideas. don't totally agree, but...most of it is not bad
• Wild at heart/Captivated (John/Stasi Eldredge) - agree even less with this one than Josh Harris. but John Eldredge has some interesting ideas that's worth considering. don't know anything about Captivated, except for it is the girl version of the book

C4C iCrave Seminar - The Solution

This is the minutes to a Campus for Christ seminar on the existence of evil, suffering and God. The seminar was presented by Dr. Kirk Durston. I went to listen in hopes to pick up some apologetics material for the NNC workshops. He recommended that I check out William Lane Craig's website for apologetics questions. 

Definition of God (by philosophy)

A being that is so great that it is not possible to be any greater. Maximally excellent. 

Could it be that there is no God? 

CS Lewis' (Christian apologist) arguments, summarized in Mere Christianity

• Universe seems to be cruel and unjust
• But how did I get the idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of what a straight line is. 
• So evil is real? Evil is only real if there are objective moral law that are being broken. These moral laws must transcend societies and civilization. Where do these moral laws come from?
• Richard Dawkins: We are born selfish. To create a society of kindness and altruism, it must be taught, for human nature will not naturally lead to that. It is easy to see this, by looking at the news or following people around and listen to their thoughts.
• If there is no moral law, than evil is just a made up concept in CS Lewis’ mind
• Moral law is only useful to minds capable of performing moral deliberation, therefore a mind. You must also must be able to make decisions (free agent - ability to make decisions that is not influenced by other agents). Moral law must transcend time, so the consequences of breaking the law needs to be known in advance. But the only way that we would know the consequence ahead of time is if it’s from a being that transcend time. This being, then, must be perfectly good. Because if we say someone is not perfectly good, then there must be a perfectly good person that we are comparing any given person against. This is God. 
• He must be all powerful (draft the law without influence) and all knowing (know the consequence of evil)
• The existence of moral law means God is interested in the moral behavior of humanity. But we all have violated the moral (God’s) law, we are all enemies of God. With this context, the message of Christianity makes sense (Jesus Christ)
• So atheism is too simple to explain all this. God must exist. 

What should God permit?

Evil which God could have prevented without forfeiting some greater good or permitting some evil as bad or worse than the instance of evil being examined

- William Rowe (Atheist Professor of Religion)

Plantinga’s Free Will Defense

• The world contains free agent who can make decisions that are not determined by any antecedent conditions and who, for any decision, could have decided otherwise
• The actualize of a world “W” containing moral good is not up to God alone; it is also depends upon what the significantly free creatures of “W” would do if God created them and placed them in the situation “W” contains

Rowe’s argument

• God might exist, given evil exist. But assuming that God probably doesn’t exist, considering the following:
• Situation 1: Fawn trapped in forest fire and undergoing several days of terrible agony before dying
• Situation 2: Young girl raped, beaten and murdered
• No good we know would be justified permit these situations. So Rowe argues that since we can’t think of justifications to permit these events, a good that could have prevented these events, must not exist. 
• We tend to ignore events that do not have direct moral value. But these events could lead to events that could lead to moral events. Ie how Churchill’s mother fell asleep during Winston Churchill’s pregnancy, which lead to the creation of Churchill, who made major moral decisions in WW2. 
• Worries from the above conclusion:
• Worry 1: Utilitarianism - happiness for the greatest number of people at the expense of the individual (so net moral value is positive). The solution would be the necessity of a ‘Judgment day’ that God would balance things out at the end and put a final end to evil
• Worry 2: Moral indecision - not sure the consequence of a moral intervention of someone else’s situation. The solution is that a free agent is only obligated to act on the basis of what that agent could reasonably be expected to know. We’re not omnipotent. 

Should read: 

• Butterfly Effect (apparently it's a book)
• Journal article: Kirk Durston, "The consequential complexity of history and gratuitous evil", Religious Studies, v36, pp. 65- 80

What is the point? If God knew we were going to mess up so badly, why even start the show? Or...if so much evil is the result of us misusing our freedom of choice, why does God permit it? Why not to erase free will so we do good all the time?

• God created us in His own likeness for the purpose of an eternal relationship. This requires that we have free will for the relationship to be meaningful. In example, I don’t want to program my computer so that it tells me it loves me regularly. That is meaningless.

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

- Revelations 3.20

• We massively underestimate the power and capabilities of humanity (Kirk Durston)
• We are created in the image and likeness of God, so nothing is impossible for us (Matthew 17). The world is where we determine our own eternal destiny
• A metaphor: AI androids
• Say we want robots with a lot of power, but also autonomous
• But what if they go bad? We’ll set up a training realm (with limited robotic abilities, so they don't do too much choas) for them and recommend them to follow a given moral code. They all go bad, but some decide that there is some merit in the code and reprogram their AI to follow the moral code
• So you collect the robots, deactivate all the robots that didn’t go for the moral code, and keep all the robots who follow the moral code and allow them to have their maximum potential

The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt. Therefore earth's inhabitants are burned up, and very few are left.

- Isaiah 24.5-6

• If you made the mess, you need to clean up your own room. It is not your mom’s job to pick up after you or to clean up your room
• So what if this world is training for the next one? Given the immense human suffering we have inflicted on one another in this world, in our mortal form, what would we be capable when we’re in our immortal form?

Q/A: How can God be omnipotent but humans still have free will?

• Omnipotent: Such a being is able to do that is logically possible (not necessarily impossible) to do
• It’s impossible to create a free agent where God can decide what he will do prior
• But since God is omnipotent, He can simply erase free will...

Q/A: Cause of evil could be from either God or the free agents in the world that God created. If God created the world to begin with, how could the creatures in it conceive evil?

• What is free will decision? There is generally rules governing a universe/thing. For example, if I buy a laptop, there is a proper way to use it. You generally don’t want to throw a laptop across the room or drop it in a puddle and still expect it to work. 
• So a free agent in the world can chose to violate the rules. So is there a flaw with the free agent? But the definition of free agent is that any cause of the free agent’s decisions is completely from the free agent and not from prior influence
• One should note that evil is the absence of goodness (by Christian def) 

• In Eden, why does the tree exist?
• In chemistry, we use catalyst to speed up reactions. The reaction will occur anyway, but the catalyst will help
• Durston suspects that the tree itself was not special. The tree was to test if humans would obey or disobey God or not. The tree was there to speed up this test. If the tree (catalyst) was not there, then the “Fall” event could’ve easily been something else, since if humans was going to be disobey, it could’ve been anything

Q/A: Existence of moral code

• If all humans are wiped out by aliens, is the purging of humans a bad thing? There must be a moral code that is higher than humans to enforce/endorse this code, since there is no more humans to defend against the purging of humans. This code must come from a higher being. 
• But there is no logical argument that will prove God. The final step is a leap of faith. It is a two-layered thing. 

Q/A: How could anyone justify events like 9/11?

• You and I are not in the position to know if God should/shouldn’t have prevented that event. We experienced the event, but don’t know the total impact of it. We would need to look at the impact of the event till the end of history and all the branches/consequences of event. We have no way of predicting how the net moral value would change if the event did not occur.
• Emotional problem of evil: You don’t want to explain this to someone who just had evil done to them. Even if God explained it to us, we might not be able to understand. As a result, Christians must take a leap of faith and have hope for the greater purpose. 
• Conversely, for the atheist, the only reasoning is that “crap happens”. 

Q/A: How can we compare different moral systems?

• There are certain principles that seems to be universal. Stealing, murdering, sleeping with your friend’s wife. If there is no objective moral law, some other society could just not think murdering or stealing is bad and you can’t do anything about it, as it is their culture. But if there is objective moral law, we can tell them that they’re wrong
• But the northern pike has NO moral law. They eat their young. Yet they thrive. 
• Do you feel that there is an objective moral law? 

Q/A: Do the free agents have inherent moral value?

What if the world got together and nominated you as “the loser”? But God came up to you and told you that He loves you? Then that matters more, since God is maximally perfect and valuable. So that matters more. 

Spiritual snipers

Was listening to Mark Driscoll, during the Desiring God 2008 Conference, delivered this talk. It is a strong-worded sermon, talking about feeding sheep, rebuking the swine, shooting the wolves, criticize the dogs and praying for the shepherds. He addresses the good Christian. The bad Christians. The false teachers and hypocrites. The religious self-righteous. The leaders. It's long, but worth listening to.

My thoughts
It's hard to not fall into one of these extremes. It involves continually examining yourself and figuring out where you stand. It involves knowing the Scriptures and what you believe in and not just repeat what you hear on TV, at church or from your peers. It involves keeping Romans 14 and 2 Timothy 3 close at hand.

I don't necessarily agree with where you were, sometimes I wonder where you at...but I am hopeful about where you are going. 

-John Piper

Growing and supporting your close ones involves love and gentleness. But also with firmness. It involves teaching and encouraging. And most importantly, hope in their future. Refining a metal is a multi-step process. Sometimes the desire for God will come easily. Sometimes it's hard and we'll need to examine ourselves.

As I mentioned during the NCC (the workshops, "no-name cell"...yes, it's a sucky name. We're still thinking -_-) introduction night at CCF a few weeks back, one of the more inspiring quotes I've heard in recent times is something I read from someone's gtalk tag:

Christians are just sinners that get back up. 

We're not that different than everyone else. We just happen to have reason for hope.