Who knows what a "Christian" is any more? The word's too loaded with associations, so for years now, I tend not to use it.

I'm a Christ-follower. I am touched by the God who creates, initiates, communicates, wants to know me and be in a spiritual relationship with ME, a finite, tarnished, living, dynamic, complex creature that God has made.

God touches, and we attempt to respond appropriately. There's ambiguity in the relationship. This is partly why we call it faith...

Like clay made into a fragile pot, I warp, I screw up, I get distracted, I get overbaked, I misunderstand, and even in my best moments I have a very limited perspective on what may be the ultimate truth and reality. (Or like clay I may get dropped and shatter to bits.) In my most arrogant moments, I know-it-all and more-or-less understand the universe. :-) But then again, rather like clay, my understanding is opaque, dirty, grimy.

A bird's-eye view seems like everything to a bird, but we know of course it's not everything.

I happen to believe God exists, God created humanity and everything we know, and is much bigger than all of this. This belief is not incompatible with our tiny but slowly growing understanding of our universe (and the uncounted ones that surround ours), all of which we sometimes call "science." Science is a profoundly proud profession. For some it is a good one to engage, but it's especially vulnerable to its own arrogance.

Some people choose not to believe this God stuff, this creator stuff. Instead, they may believe other ideas with no greater or lesser proof than I have. They might believe vague ideas, like the big bang. They might place their faith in other origins of "the species" than I do. (I would argue many of these choices constitute a MUCH greater faith exercise than my own.)

Many of today's debates over faith, religion, god, society, freedom, and morality come down to what's most comfortable or preferable for a particular individual (or their surrounding community) to believe. What pleases the individual (or makes him/her more palatable to peers) can sometimes trump what may or may not be actually true. What humans might happen to understand or prefer can sometimes trump what may be reality. Reality sometimes takes a way-back seat.

(Even Christians are capable of believing things more out of convenience and social compatibility than any particular conviction of truth.)

I find this to be a strange thing. How did truth and morality become so ambiguous?

Here's my point: God is the real author of moral ambiguity.

If you believe as I do that there is a God, and God is the creator of everything that exists (even by creating evolution if that makes you more comfortable for now -- if God could possibly create countless galaxies, could God NOT create a pattern such as evolution???)... you must wonder sometimes why God chose not to lay down a lot more than ten commandments, a much clearer delineation between good and evil, right and wrong, sheep and goat.

For example:

Is war right or wrong? Is homosexuality an aberration, some kind of distortion, or a sin, or is it natural and good? Is pride or anger a lesser evil than adultery or murder? Is lying always wrong? Are women morally obligated not to teach men? Is it OK to plant two species of plants in the same garden? Is or was slavery (aka indentured servanthood) ever alright with God? Is it OK to allow genocide to occur when we all know it is occurring, either rapidly (Rwanda) or in slow motion (Sudan)? Are we personally responsible for the death of one person or millions of people whose deaths we could have prevented? Should people who break rules always be punished? When should grace and mercy be doled out? Which rules are the right ones? Which broken-rules are serious enough for punishment, and which for the punishment of death? How can we be sure a person warrants the punishment of death? (What if we might make mistakes in our determination of guilt?) How should selfishness be punished? How should laziness be punished? How should making a child insecure or afraid be punished? What should be done when an "insane" person does wrong? Under what circumstances is murder OK? Should Christians join the military or kill in wars? Is it a lie to wear makeup or get cosmetic surgery? Under what circumstances is divorce OK with God? When can promises be broken? Is it OK for a doctor to save a mom's life at the expense of a fetus? Vice versa? When's this not OK? Is it OK to kill abortion doctors? Should adulterers be stoned? Is obesity sinful? Are there any circumstances when torturing human beings (who may or may not have done anything wrong) is OK with the God who made each person?

(And are Christ-followers who hate or judge or adulterate or gossip doubly guilty, or doubly forgiven?)

Even within the church, our human answers to these questions change over time, as the centuries pass.

These are all hypothetical questions, of course!

So, what did God really design and intend, and what things fall short of this mark, short of God's ideals for this creation of which we are a part? Which murky areas are simply a missed mark, and which are sin, evil, morally wrong and unacceptable and even punishable?

God could have spelled out in glorious detail the answers to these questions, if God wanted to do so. God did not do so and apparently did not want to do so. Parts of the Old Testament actually do hint at failed attempts to spell out the gory details of morality. I think God knew all along this was an impossible effort.

God's ambiguity puts a burden on we the people. I think that THIS is what God wants: to be glorified by (God's very own creation) making wise and morally pure choices based on conscience and spiritual humility. I think God wants to see the creature acting justly, loving mercy, walking humbly, and worshiping nothing other than the Creator. Is that asking so much?

This is not about what laws are on the books of my nation or yours, this century or next; this is about personal and communal choices aligned with the purity for which God designed us.

Here's a simple example: I heard recently about a pamphlet that some Christ-followers were handing out, titled on the cover, "What Jesus Says About Homosexuality". Open the pamphlet, containing several pages, and the pages are all blank. Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality. This is a fact. (As I heard it, these Christ-followers use this pamphlet as a conversation-starter, to show love and concern for people regardless of their "orientation" or their assumptions about sexuality. Incidentally, this is the way Jesus interacted with people who were shunned by the "moral majority" of his day.)

Putting aside the convictions you or I may happen to have about homosexuality, Jesus said nothing about it as far as the gospel accounts record. If it was important, as our generation seems to feel, why did Jesus not address it at all, according to the four gospels?

I rest my case: God is the author of moral ambiguity.

Why???

Are there things more important than moral dis-ambiguity? More important than lines not to cross, or by which to judge others?

Yeah, it appears that there are.

Dare we inform God on what should have been more clear in the ultimate act of communication, the very incarnation of the Word become flesh?

Jesus did say we are to love God with everything, and love our fellow humans more than our selves.

Let's start with that, it's not ambiguous.