Will The Real Christians Please Stand Up?

By Sally Bishai

I WOULD say that this week has been a difficult one for the Middle East, the Arab world and the Muslim world. But. That would be a bit redundant, seeing how almost every week is a difficult one for those who can translate the Arabic word “Salaam,” even if they don’t live it. (For the record, it means “peace.”)

Since it’s been “that kind of week,” I’ve come across dozens of articles that have recapped the problems; Afghanistan’s control-freak “you can’t diss Islam!” issues, Egypt’s “you can’t diss Islam in a blog or build a church!” issues, and everyone else’s “you can’t wear anything but a black tent, lassie!” issues.

So. While I’ve read several articles dealing with (and debating on) what Islam actually believes, and whether conversion is or isn’t allowed (some “secular Muslims” would have us believe that one actually CAN leave the religion…and live to tell about it), it got me wondering the same thing about Christianity.

See, I was recently speaking with a young lady I’ll call Marge.

Marge belongs to one of the biggest denominations in America. She’s proud to be a virgin, goes to church every Sunday and is more involved in youth group than anyone I’ve ever met.

Unfortunately, that’s not all she’s involved with.

See, the 19-year-old is fond of going to clubs, drinking the occasional beer, and wearing tight, revealing clothing. She’s kissed a few boys, too.

On the surface, a person (a very snarky one) might wonder why such a stylish and popular girl bothered with church. (I was talking to another lady recently, and she confessed to thinking that, in her mind, anyway, being a devoted Christian equated with being a nerd. All I had to say to that was “Honey, you’d best check yourself before you wreck yourself. Or before someone else does!”)

This goes back to the whole “thing where people feel attracted to those who play hard-to-get,” and the thing that has nice girls attracted to “bad boys.”

Simply put, we always want what we can’t have. Or what we shouldn’t have.

Back to Marge, however, I am sad to report that, as close a relationship as she perceives she has with Jesus—and I obviously am NOT the Grand Arbiter of Jesus-Relationships—she really does live a life that made me very surprised to learn that she was even a Christian, much less a “strong” one.

I know what you’re thinking.
“SALLY, the Bible doesn’t say you can’t drink! Only that you shouldn’t get drunk!” and “I didn’t REALIZE, Grand Bishai, that nightclubs were forbidden in the Scriptures!”

Well, I have two answers for that.

The first is that the Bible does NOT go around naming the actual manifestations of every single thing it discourages, only the sin behind it; meaning that it may not say “Thou shalt not pick up an AK-47 to settle a dispute with your math teacher,” but it DOES warn against anger, several times, and say “A soft answer turns away wrath,” and “Thou shalt not murder.”

It also mentions that we’re to avoid the appearance of evil, and slithering about in a backless top with a micro-skirt that wouldn’t cover my entire hand is the farthest thing from “angelic.” Or, at least, it may inspire a drunken club-goer (male or female!) to force his (her!?) attentions on Aunty Slither. (This refers to the whole “stumbling block” thing.)

Furthermore, we’re told to be modest, avoid immorality, and while the Bible says nothing about wearing a black tent (thanks be to God), Clingwrap clothing doesn’t automatically scream “Christian” to me.

The purpose of today’s article isn’t to outline all the “sin-ettes” that people think they can sneak under the wire.

Rather, I am concerned with the fact that people don’t CONSIDER them to BE sin-ettes!

(For the record, the Bible very clearly states that sins are a matter of black and white—there is no big sin and small sin. There ARE moral absolutes! To God, all sins are the same in beastliness, and all good works are “as filthy rags, lest any man should boast.” Meaning that your financing a church in Swaziland will get you the same number of brownie points as would giving a glass of water to a person you just had a fight with. Or any person, really.)

For example, I recently spoke with a girl who spent 14 hours telling me about how great God was, and how she went to church 3 times a week.

Then, she proceeded to tell me that she lived with her fiancé.

Hello? It’s called “wrong” !

You may be asking “Why?” and I’ll tell you; the Bible considers any sex outside of marriage—whether adulterous or just pre-marital—to be a sin. The very thought (or thoughts, strung together like a movie) of engaging in this “illegal” sex is considered to be just as bad as actually doing it. (The sin of lust and all that..)

And dressing in clothes made for the Keebler Elves can stoke the flames of desire, which will either lead to Sins A or B, if not both.

“But what if I dress that way for my husband, Sally? Did you ever think of that? HMMMM?”

Well, I did, actually.

If you’re in your house, that’s fine. But. It’s when you go out that you could entice others to sin, even if it’s just “their” sin, and “just” the sin of lust.

Thinking “Oh, I don’t care about the sins of the man on the street!” isn’t the best, either, since we are SUPPOSED to care about our brethren, Christian or not. Furthermore, even though THEY sinned, the inciter of said sin is not off-the-hook!

So dressing like a hoochie mama is, for the most part, a bad idea all around. If you feel like claiming that you’re a Christian, anyway.

You may be wondering if my focusing on the skimpy clothes bit has to do with the fact that I’m Egyptian, but the truth is that 1- I’m also ‘American,’ and 2- the new breed of Egyptian girls—whether here or there—isn’t as scandalized by short/tight/revealing togs as I would like them to be.

You know, in light of the fact that all good deeds are nothing, and all bad deeds weigh the same, I can understand how some might think that they can get some drinking and clubbing in on the sly, without incurring the fires of hell.

And, while I can’t comment on whether it WILL be ok to pull these stunts, in the final analysis, I CAN say that, based on my reading of the Bible, God is not mocked, AND He won’t be so quick to forgive you of a sin you’re planning to do, whether it’s killing your roommate or sneaking an extra cookie (or six) after dinner (the whole gluttony thing…and that IS a sin!).

Anyway, time for me to go; I have a date with the garbage collector to throw out the stash of Doritos and Oreos that are hiding under the sink!

(PS- Just in case you’re interested in what the Bible considers “sinful,” have a quick glance over this laundry list:

Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortion, sexually immoral, malicious, envious, murderers, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful lewd, unclean, contentious, jealous, selfish, dissentious, revelrous, angry, foolish, disobedient, deceived, hateful, lawless, offensive, insubordinate, unholy, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, lovers of themselves, lovers of money, blasphemers, unthankful, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure, cowards, unbelieving, sorcerers, those who practice witchcraft, soothsayers, whoever interprets omens, conjures spells, a medium, a spiritist, one who calls up the dead, diviners, one who practices magic, whoever loves and practices a lie.

(For more info, check out: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-31, Proverbs 22:24-25; 29:22, Revelation 21:8, Galatians 5:19-21, Matthew 13:41-42, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Titus 3:3 ,
2 Timothy 3:2-4, Deuteronomy 18:10-14, Ezekiel 13:18-20, Revelation 22:15, Acts 19:19, 1 Samuel 15:23…)

Our World Isn’t Twisted Enough

By Sally Bishai

I was halfway finished with an article decrying the discrimination against and persecution of certain races, but then an unbelievable series of events led me to a Yahoo! Movie Page dedicated to the horror genre.

Having read the synopses, and having taken in more ads advertising “The Year’s Scariest Flick!” and proclaiming that “You’ll Never Be Able to Turn The Lights Out Again!” than I could comfortably stomach so early in the morning, I decided to switch gears, in hopes of addressing the sick cinematographic appetites that are fuelling this 178 BILLION dollar industry. (And, the other article was taking too long to finish.)

I know that I’m (in)famous for going on about how I hate “the industry,” how TV is from the devil, and all sorts of semi-radical views of that nature.

You can’t really blame me, however, since the television and movie industry 1- use sex to sell everything from wall paint to rice, 2- is one of the most powerful tools of wide-range culture-transmission that we have available to us, 3- invariably depicts immorality, drug use, violence, disrespect to elders, and other actions that today’s youth don’t need to be imbibing—24/7, it seems—during their formative years.

After all, the more often one sees something, the more desensitized said person is to said behavior, leading to a much higher probability of said person’s adopting said behavior.

Scary, hmm?

I know what you’re thinking.

“Sally, wasn’t it YOU who was preaching tolerance a few weeks ago? Wasn’t it YOU who said we should hate the sin and love the sinner?”

You’re right, dear reader, I did.

BUT.

No one said anything about a methodical system of creating people who have an ever-increasing appetite for violence and mayhem!

(And before I go on, let me tell you why I’m focusing on scary films rather than on immoral films. It’s because sex is something that, within the proper situation, isn’t wrong, and can’t harm you. The addiction to it might, but sex itself won’t; besides, we’re wired for it. On the other hand, there is no context in which violence and torture could be considered “right,” and I defy anyone to tell me a situation where it is.)

“What dost thou mean, O Sally, dear Gadfly of this day and age? WHAT could be wrong with watching the occasional scary movie?”

Merely this: it’s not GOING to be the occasional one. The nature of the macabre, like a Lays potato chip, prevents you from HAVING just one. Humans are born with an innate fascination for all things morbid, and if you don’t believe me, try driving past an accident on the highway… without wondering just what happened.

I know, I know, people are innately curious, which doesn’t always translate to “morbid fascination.” But it’s a rare person who really doesn’t want to know about a tragedy or horrific thing.

If I told you that I saw the scariest movie of all time, you KNOW you’d ask what it was, and what made it so scary.

Your poor little mind wouldn’t let go of the thought, and you’d stay up all night, wondering.

You’d think “Nothing could be THAT shocking, though. I am past the point of being shocked!”

You might then watch the film, to see if it lived up to the hype.

You’d be so intent on proving yourself right that you may not be as horrified as the situation calls for.

And then…your tolerance for the truly horrible would get that much higher.

There, in a nutshell, is the development of the reprobate mind. So the whole “building a tolerance” thing is my first issue with horror films.

My next issue includes the fact that the pandering to this morbidity in us reminds me of the time when Romans would turn out, en masse, to watch the people (some of them Christians, others just garden-variety innocents or criminals) get eaten by lions, or turned on a wheel that would break their bones.

After a building of tolerance comes an actual appetite for something, you see. Serial killers over the years have confirmed this, admitting that when their perverse tastes couldn’t be quenched by films, they had to go create their own horror just to feel normal.

My most powerful argument, however, and the one that should appeal to a rational being (or a liberal, even) where the past two arguments may smack of the religious—meaning that some people might see nothing wrong with going around killing people, or torturing them—is the state of the world.

When suicide bombers kill themselves in an attempt to kill others, when prisoners of war (formal or informal) are tortured for information, or for the mere crime of belonging to the “wrong” side…does this sound like a world that needs even one more violent act—whether real or staged?

If you want to watch something gruesome, you may as well watch real videos of real people being tortured.

Actually, don’t. It would just serve the same purpose as watching the staged version of the same thing in some horror movie.

This makes me wonder: Are horror movies worse, or “snuff films,” their real-life counterparts?

On one hand, the horror movie is just a movie, and no one should have gotten hurt making the film, although the attempt to slake the thirst for violence is still there.

On the other hand, most people watching “Faces of Death” know that they’re watching the real thing, which makes them even worse. Or does it?

In a related matter, I happen to think it’s equally horrid to find humor in people’s misfortune, like in Home Alone, when the bumbling thieves—who, by all accounts, deserve to have some sort of come-uppance for their misdeeds—keep having all sorts of “accidents” precipitated by a naughty 11-year-old.

Hokey, perhaps. On par with snuff films, though? You’d better believe it.

From reality shows to real life, any time we derive any sort of entertainment from the misfortune—macabre or not—of others, we’re violating some moral code or other.

The sad thing—in any case—is that people give in to these macabre desires because it gives them a little jolt.

It makes the hair stand up on their necks.

What they don’t realize, however, is that they’re doing a wild dance with death, trying to get as close as they can to the edge, flirting with it a little, maybe, in an attempt to make themselves feel more alive.

The answer isn’t in pricking ourselves with the needle of Norman Bates or Freddy Krueger, though.

The ANSWER lies in waking up from our spiritual deadness and really CARING about something, and not just anything!

The spirit can only awaken—and fully develop—in the heavenly glow given off by our Heavenly Father.

May the light of the sun—and the Son—envelop you this day, my friend, and grant you the peace that passes all understanding!

Here’s To The Bride

By Sally Bishai

Weddings these days are ridiculously expensive. And just plain ridiculous. Call me a kill-joy, but I have a real issue with the almost-requisite wastefulness, materialism, and sexism that’s rampant in the modern-day wedding ceremony.

In proper Sally fashion, let’s begin with materialism, backpedal into wastefulness, and then bunny-hop into the sexism of it all.

According to a 2002 study done by The International Institute of Weddings, a wedding’s average cost (in the States) was $21,300.

A site called Random Musings (http://macg.metcorp.com/?cat=35) gives the following financial estimates on the frippery that goes into a modern wedding “with all the trimmings”:

Reception Site $8,000
Engagement Ring $3,000
Honeymoon $3,000
Wedding Rings $1,100
Photography & Video $1,500
Rehearsal Dinner $800
(Where did the food at the reception go?)
Bridal Gown $800
Bridal Accessories $200
(Hello, snacks??)
Bridesmaids $900
Flowers $850
Music $750 - 2,500
(What about the cake?!)
Limousines / Transportation $450
Stationery / Invitations $400
Formalwear $500
Clergy/Chapel $250

Ridiculous.

$850 for some geraniums? Who ever heard of such a thing!?

Millions, apparently. The wedding industry has been estimated as doing over 50 BILLION dollars a year.

Ridiculous!

This is horrifically wasteful. Just think… You could support an entire family in some “third-world” country for like 5 years for the (exorbitant) price of the limousine.

Why not get a cab and fork over the money saved to the Red Cross or the Christian Children’s Fund? Or Coptic Orphans, for that matter?

(Or the Tsunami? Or Katrina? No shortage of good causes, I can assure you..)

I know what you’re thinking: “But SALLY, this is supposed to be our special day! A day we’ll remember all our lives! It’s OK to go a little wild and spend lots just this once!”

My responses to this—and you’ll notice the mind of the girl (me) who got a perfect score on the logic section of the GRE (but managed to fail her statistics exam last week, but I can’t think about that now)—include the following:

1- Where does it say that $400 invitations and a thousand-dollar-cake automatically constituted a “special day” ?
2- Why does one need to conform to one long-dead wedding planner’s idea of “a beautiful wedding” for it to have been a memorable success?
3- If you’re rich enough to pay for a $20,000 wedding without having to use credit cards or “scrimp” for the next 2 years, then far be it from Moi to stand in your way.
4- It’s NOT just one day! The aforementioned Random Musings site tells me that brides take seven to TWELVE MONTHS to plan their weddings! What a waste of time!
5- Finally—and I hate to have to mention this but it’s the truth—about half the time, it’s NOT just this once! (You already said that, Sally..) No, I mean that almost half of marriages (in America, anyway) end up in divorce. Imagine having to go through this ruckus more than once!

Now that I’ve gone on about the financial end for as long as I care to, I can start in on the philosophical end of things. (Did you think I’d run out of steam and just save this part for another day? Dream on, love. I’m just getting started.)

Here are some of my biggest objections to the “white-dress-and-50-foot-cake” wedding. (I haven’t counted up how many cultures in the world subscribe to this, but it has to be more than just Canada, the US, and the UK.)

In case you’re wondering, I got in this snit after having watched one of my favorite movies, “How To Marry a Millionaire,” two times in a row as I was reading a book the other day. (No, not my statistics book.)

Lauren Bacall looked lovely as she walked down the aisle towards her husband-to-be.

I felt bad that her father wasn’t walking her up the aisle, but then I wondered why she needed anyone to walk her anywhere? Although, since it’s really her and her family marrying him and his family, wouldn’t it make more sense that both of her parents (and all of her siblings, for that matter) would walk her up the aisle?

Then I started thinking, why does she have to go to HIM? Why couldn’t he have walked over to her?

I can just see it now—the rich millionaire striding up the aisle with his entire nuclear family, to Lauren and her family, who awaited at the altar.

But then I wondered why anyone had to march down any aisle in the first place? I mean, I fully realize that to get from the back of the church to the front of the church, one has to actually walk, BUT, why can’t the spouses-to-be just march in together? (Ok, they can leave their respective families in the audience for that.)

The last major issue I have with weddings is the fact that the woman has to wear white. Or eggshell. Or even “antique ivory.”

Do they do it out of tradition? I know that many—if not most, sadly—of the women wearing white today don’t deserve to be doing so.

Meaning, they’re not, as the dress implies, virgin at that point. (You’ll be glad to know that I’m not going to bring morality into today’s lecture.)

While my faith (Christian) and my culture (Egyptian) both dictate that virginity is a desirable (and almost mandatory, really) thing for an unmarried woman to have, I must again raise the question of, “Why the woman?”

Meaning, why does the WOMAN’S virginity, signified by the white dress, have to be on display? Does the man’s black tuxedo mean he’s been a player since he was 9-years-old? (If white and black are opposites, I mean.) Does anyone even care whether the guy’s had a physical relationship before?

I mean, thank God it’s not a common practice (anymore) to come out of the bridal chamber waving a bloody sheet (don’t ask), but at the same time, I really think that a white dress—whether deserved or no—is just one more thing that needs to go. (On the other hand, I think that every woman should strive TO deserve the designation of “white” rather than the just-as-genteel, but less-than-morally-sound “off-white” or “elegant bone.”

So, what’s left, then? I’ve done away with the limo, the invitations, the dress, the rings.. oh, I didn’t bring up the rings yet, did I?

Very briefly put, I think it’s silly that the man has to “buy the woman off” with an engagement ring. Why doesn’t he get a ring? (And furthermore, why does it have to be a ring? What if I want a new camera?)

The only logical thing I can think of is that the woman gets the ring so that she can hock it if her husband turns out to be a shylock, but that’s less-than-helpful to the cause of women’s rights.

My friend Canadian Sam and I once discussed his impending wedding, and came up with an interesting plan: men should give women a piece of string to tie around their finger until the Big Day, after which the man would go to the store and get a real ring.

But then I wondered why the man had to do the giving, and why there had to be a trading-in, and then I got to the point where I wondered why there had to be a ring in the first place. Sam agreed. “I’m enough,” he said, and that was that.

Is there anything I DO approve of in a wedding?

Well, yes. It could be said that the only convention I agree with is that it should be in church, before God. (Obviously, if you’re not a Christian, this doesn’t apply to you, but at least a person’s faith should be brought into it, since most belief systems have some form of an almighty creator.)

I hope you don’t think me a rabid feminist, or else the worst form of cynic.

The truth is, though, that the state of the nation—and, in fact, the world—is such that so expensive a day is almost a sin to contribute to.

Furthermore, while I have a problem with the frippery of today’s weddings, I think my biggest problem is that these things are done out of a desire to follow “convention,” rather than following one’s own desire.

So don’t be surprised if you read that I suddenly got married in a $100 ceremony in a local church, carrying an $8 bouquet of orchids, wearing a formal dress of deep purple, and sitting in the back seat of a taxi on the way to Taco Bell, with a befuddled groom and a new, $5,000 Nikon.