I was encouraged to write this article or more specifically, any sort of literary work—by my friends involved in this publication. Of course, when I expressed my interest, I was casually asked, “What are you concentrating in?”, in the hopes that some English or philosophy major might posit some unique insight to our faith. To their surprise, I answered, “Applied Math,” and it is with this perspective I wish to highlight some of the tenets of Christianity. Christianity captures my mind with great interest. What is it about mathematics that fascinates me, as well?

Firstly, what makes math so universally true? Unlike the other sciences, mathematics builds upon basic axioms and constructs everything thereafter with rigorous proof and logic. Secondly, mathematics seems to be both independent from and interrelated with the world. Math can be studied and derived for its own sake; it also can be applied to many real-world phenomena, such as describing the movement of thrown objects by a parabola. We take it for granted that the numbers we learned as children can be taken to new levels, describing the world not just as “one, two, three”, but also in terms of differential equations, statistical analysis, and more.

I personally find it amazing that math can be found everywhere. There are the all-too-often cited examples of the Golden Ratio, seen in the shell of the nautilus and purportedly in ancient architecture and classical music. By randomly throwing sticks in a defined area, we can also approximate the irrational number pi, the ratio between a circle’s circumference to its diameter. In my belief and experience, mathematics is aesthetic and beautiful. One of my favorite equations is Euler’s identity, which combines three fundamental constants familiar to most students: e^i? + 1 = 0. Of this identity, mathematician Benjamin Peirce said, “It is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don’t know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth.” This is what I have to say about that identity, and perhaps about mathematics in general: it’s mindblowingly mystifying, greater than any one mathematician, and impossible for our minds to fully grasp, but it’s absolutely incredible—it must be true. And how much more awe-inspiring it is to know that this mathematical lens is only a glimpse, a mere sliver, of how glorious, immense, inconceivable, and undeniably true our God is. He governed His creation with the laws of mathematics, giving us a framework by which we can attempt to see Him, and by the wonder of His creation, we catch a mere glimpse of His raw, awesome might. As Isaiah 40:26 says, “Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of His great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.” Isn’t it a wonder how every minute detail of our surrounding world has been shaped by the Creator’s hand? How everything, great and small, points to the wonderful God who has made all things possible, through His very being?

Romans 1:19-20 says, “…since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Something I find mystical and wondrous about mathematics is the absolute, unchangeable

It is a sad fact that I often have to think quite purposefully about how God fits into my life. God often seems more than set apart; his grandness can also be read as silence. At first look, God might seem to be appear strangely absent from our social lives, public discourse, and academic interests. Alternately, even great heroes of the Christian faith such as Mother Theresa have openly admitted to experiencing a crushing emotional isolation from God. However, The recognition of these realities need not lead to depression and despair. Instead of seeing this reality as the grand conclusion to a painful story, the Christian views this silence as the opening scene of a great drama.

It was our God who flattened the distance between us and Him. It is our God who continues to do so. God’s seeming absence provides room for His grand entrance after we make an invitation for Him to enter. Like some strange and powerful medicine, God brings life wherever He is allowed entry. The futility of human plans and the dark night of the soul can then be transformed by the light of the revelation and rising sun that follow.

I hope that the stories, thoughts, poems, and art in the pages that follow will serve a dual purpose. Firstly, may they be a testament to the light seeping into our lives. Certainly, no one can claim to have fully tasted the delights that the LORD has prepared, but sharing our relief and exhilaration at the few drops that we have tasted sets us on the road to thanksgiving, praise, and worship. What could be a more appropriate response to the living God? Secondly, I hope that the recounting of reflections, feelings, and thoughts on what it means to see God come into our lives will serve as an invitation to all. What beauty is revealed by God’s presence in our respective disciplines? What life can He bring to our social institutions? What hope can He bring to our emotional lives and life narratives?

“Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!”
-Psalm 34:8 (ESV)

Whenever we attempt to discuss the intersection of faith and politics, we have a tendency to ask binary questions: Is God a Democrat or a Republican? A Capitalist or a Communist?, etc. Before looking for answers, the best thing is to recognize the inherent ridiculousness of this form of question. God is the omnipotent Creator of the universe, not a human being. His “policies,” if we can call them by that name, are bigger than the United States and its narrow political debates, or even the world and its limited economic options.

It makes more sense to start with God’s perspective, and then attempt to apply it to human life; than to start with our lives and attempt to confine God’s thoughts within them. The Bible’s explicit references to economics center chiefly on a particular approach to property rights. God’s opinion becomes clear in three key moments: the Ten Commandments, the Year of Jubilee, and first-century communalism in Acts.

As you may know, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses just after Israel’s escape from Egypt. They represent part of God’s covenant with the Jewish people. The seventh commandment instructs tersely: “You shall not steal. So what exactly qualifies as stealing? The Bible never expressly defines theft, but talks about it as an act that harms another person: through dishonest withholding of wages, wrongful appropriation of belongings, etc. In other words, God’s concern with stealing stems chiefly from the harm it causes to others. He refers to stealing as ‘oppression’ or a failure to love others.

Contrast this with the popular understanding of property rights. We say that because our labor has either allowed us to craft a particular good, or to buy it with money we’ve earned, we have an inherent right to possess it. The state, in punishing theft, is merely upholding exclusive entitlement to the fruits of one’s own labor. In practice, this often involves protecting the rich from the poor, since the wealthy usually inhabit an advantageous position, both because they own more property and because they enjoy asymmetrical legal protection.

The Bible focuses on respecting property as an act of love and mercy to one’s fellow man. In other words, we honor another person’s ownership of his belongings, not because he has any inherent right to them, but because to take them would do him harm. The granting of property “privileges” is an act of love for one another. God focuses on protecting the poor from the rich, commanding employers to compensate their workers fairly and at the agreed-upon time. This is not to say that God is okay with the poor seizing the goods of the rich, but rather that God places most of his focus on protecting those who are most likely to suffer.

The second important moment in establishing the Bible’s view of property comes in Leviticus. Once the Jews were more solidly established as a nation, God refined the Ten Commandments into a longer, more exhaustive law. One of its oft-ignored commands is the Year of Jubilee: “You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim a release throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, and each of you shall return to his property, and each of you shall return to his family.” The ‘property’ this passage refers to is the original land allocation specified by the Old Testament, in which each family was supposed to end up with an equal share of the land. God knew that over time, individual families would diverge from each other in wealth, and acquire/sell property as needed. He commands a fairly frequent, radical redistribution of income, intended to ensure that no one was fabulously wealthy while his countrymen suffered indigence. In a country following this practice, no one would be condemned to poverty because of his parents’ economic standing, nor would the children of rich families have unassailable economic privileges. (No one will be shocked to hear that the Hebrew nation never actually observed the Year of Jubilee.) God established this surprising approach to ensure minimum suffering. Property rights are a temporary privilege, a reward for hard work, but not a license to ignore the needs of those less fortunate or less naturally gifted.

The last, and perhaps most striking, glimpse into God’s attitude comes in the New Testament book of Acts. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, his followers united to live together in community, encouraging one another and, most importantly, working together to spread His message to others. A passage notes the following practice:

The congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. There was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostle’s feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.

So in a group of people, perhaps the most devoted to obeying God which has ever existed, there arose a voluntary communal ownership of property. It’s important to notice that this is not necessarily the same thing as communism, in which there is a top-down order to redistribute. Rather, individuals chose to participate, establishing communalism by grassroots agreement. There are two key moments in this passage. First, it says that ‘not one of them claimed that anything…was his own.’ In other words, the society that most faithfully followed Christ abandoned the idea of property rights. They are an idea set up to protect us from each other, not a good in and of themselves.

Second, the passage says that property owners would ‘lay [their money] at the apostle’s feet.’ In other words, this is not charity or philanthropy. The rich followers of Jesus were not expecting fervent thanks or praise for their decision. Rather, they were doing their part to sustain the community of believers, out of love for their friends.

So, then, what does God say about economics? Would he favor a welfare state or a regulatory state? Neither. Since Jesus’ followers chose a redistributive model, it might be tempting to say that God would prefer a welfare state. However, this misses the point of that moment in Acts. No one passed a law telling the disciples to share everything in common. Rather, out of their love for one another and for God, they chose to do so. This is what God wants.

From the seventh commandment to the Year of Jubilee to New Testament communalism, God’s focuses on the way people treat each other, not what percentage tax it’s best to pay. In a world where everyone obeyed God, there would be no need for welfare or health insurance because we would cheerfully meet each other’s needs. God is calling us to something much more radical than an economic debate; he wants us to challenge and change our way of treating one another.

If you have ever brought up the topic of homosexuality with a group of Christians, you might know the feeling that someone says, “The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin,” and then everybody nods and discussion ends. The lack of specificity in a label statement such as this belies a real lack of engagement with the issue of the acceptability of homosexuality among Christians. What does the Bible actually say about homosexuality? The answer to this question is important. In a prominent nationwide survey of un-churched young people, non-Christians (and nonpracticing Christians) associated Christian with anti-homosexual more than any other descriptive label. Ninety-one percent of them agreed with the statement “Christians are anti-homosexual.”

I understand that this is a politicized issue, and that this issue stirs up deep emotions. I am treading on contested ground by positing that homosexuality is not necessarily sinful, nor against God’s will. Most people think that orthodox Christians are unfailingly negative and militaristic toward homosexuality. However, most of the Christians that I know at Brown are not described by this statement. Many of us have gay friends. And, in fact, most of us do not condemn our friends’ sexuality to their faces. Is this a mere lack of courage, or is something else at work? How do we understand our commitment to them, and what does our Gospel have to say to them?

Scripture is not meant to speak to a vacuum, but rather to speak to our real-life experiences and desires. And when Scripture and life come together, we cannot help but that our experiences color, as well, our reading of the Bible. As hard as we try, a “pure” reading of the text is not possible. For instance, I once had an intense dream which forced me to consider the claims of Pentecostals with regards to the Bible for the first time. With this in mind, I acknowledge that my experiences of faithful, gay Christians have informed my viewpoint on homosexuality. I have known quite a few committed Christians who have come out as homosexuals, including some who live in committed, long-term relationships with their partners. Gary and Jim, who play organ and sing in my home church’s choir and who offered their house to my aunt for her wedding, have been together for thirty years. They were married last year in California, but Proposition 8 since annulled their wedding. Many of us have experiences of gay people here at Brown, as well, which may color our experiences in any number of ways. Few of us, however, know gay Christians, and our association with an entirely heterosexual church also informs our views of what a church should look like and how it should deal with gay people.

Our understanding of Scripture is informed by our experiences, and it should also be informed by the experiences of the author and the original audience of Biblical texts. We interpret Scripture in the light of the Gospel, in the light of the New Testament writers’ understandings of Jesus. Any Christian who has engaged in the reading of difficult passages of Scripture knows that sometimes this overarching idea – that God created a good world, that human beings have screwed it up, and that God sent Jesus into the world to reconcile Himself to us and to each other, to create a new heaven and new earth where all flourish and have intimate connection with God —needs to be applied to difficult passages of Scripture in order to make sense of them. Cultural context is also extremely important in understanding the true meaning of stories, letters and the Bible as a whole.

Scripture lacks a lot of statements about homosexuality. At most, eight passages deal with the topic (whereas 2,000 deal with poverty, for instance). Discussion centers, however, around three passages: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the law given in Leviticus, and Romans 1. Sodom and Gomorrah, describes two representatives of the Lord (who are implied to be very close to God himself) who meet Abraham and then travel to stay with Lot in Sodom. The men of the town demand that the men be brought out of Lot’s house so that they can rape them, and for that God destroys the town. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are inhospitality and attempting to rape an angel of God, not homosexuality.

Leviticus 20:13 says, “You shall not lie with man as with woman; it is an abomination.” This law must be interpreted in light of the purpose of the entire Jewish law, to distinguish the nation of Israel from other peoples. In fact, the word “abomination” implies not the same thing it does to us today, but rather something which makes the Israelites ritually unclean, such as violating kosher laws or having unwanted sexual discharges. Ritual purity was the way in which Jews were separated from other nations. Jesus’ fulfilling the law and universalizing the gospel makes these considerations obsolete for gentile Christians.

Romans 1 is the most difficult passage of the bunch. In it, Paul is making a polemic against idolatry in order

to emphasize the importance of the fact that Jesus’ salvation comes by faith, since no one has avoided idolatry and earned salvation for themselves. Writing from Corinth, the home of prostitutes, he denounces those idolaters he sees around him and says that because of their idolatry, “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”! Anti-homosexuality scholars contend that this passage demonstrates the Biblical basis for a natural order of heterosexuality. People commonly express this by saying, “The parts don’t fit.” Paul does describe the idolaters’ acts as unnatural. However, he also uses “unnatural” (physis, physical nature, not ktisis, or created nature) to describe men with long hair, for instance. While this was unconventional, it was certainly not against nature, or genetics, for men to grow long hair. In fact, Paul’s reason for believing that their acts were unnatural may have been the lack of male gender dominance in their sexuality, not the fact that they were same-sex relations. While Peter converted individuals to Christianity, Paul worked within the existing societal structure of male-headed households to spread the gospel. While Paul in some ways was a radical feminist for his time, he also spoke in ways that resonated with the culture (“For the husband is the head of his wife as Christ is head of the church”). Households were generally converted according to the will of the father, as everything else done in society would have been done. Homosexuality, which does not make a picture of male authority, was in this way entirely unconventional and probably looked down upon by ancient Christians as a practice of social rejects and freaks. Thus Paul laments the unconventionality of these homosexual relations, the way in which it made them seem like sinners, rather than denouncing the act itself. If men and women are not the only physical partners for each other, anti-homosexuality scholars often contend that they are necessary metaphysical partners for each other, that they form the perfect team for life. However, this position is against Paul’s, who believes that men and women should be single if they are able to do so.

Unconventional sexuality is both a punishment for and a result of idolatry in this passage. He describes this group of sexual deviants as “full of every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; …they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy”. 9 Does this description accurately describe our gay friends today? What about the gay people that we know who are not idolaters of this type? Today’s cultural landscape of some level of tolerance for homosexuals means that more “normal” people feel safe in coming out. Paul may not be speaking about the same people that we are speaking about. In another way, however, Paul is speaking to everyone. He uses this passage to tell everyone, including the Christian congregation, that they are sinners as well and need to be reminded of his main point – that Jesus saves all by faith, not by our own perfection. Thus, this passage either does not describe today’s homosexuals, or it describes them only to the extent to which it describes everyone.

Multiple readings of this passage are possible, but the one that makes the most sense with my experiences, with Paul’s point in the passage and the overall salvific message of the Bible, and in the context of the first century, is the one that does not condemn homosexuality outright. The prudent course is to drop our opposition to it. Attempts at curing homosexuality, such as ex-gay treatments, are rarely successful at preventing gay behavior, and never successful at stopping gay attraction. Also, I know that when I tell people that I support gay marriage, they are more willing to dialogue with me about the crux of Christianity as well. But this is not only the practical path, but the right one. God has created us and our sexuality good, and this statement applies to gay people as well as straight ones. Coming out as a gay person is an incredibly challenging process of discovering and asserting one’s identity; it is hard enough without Christians denouncing them. Wouldn’t it be better if, instead, during this process of self-discovery gay people knew that God loved them, created them to be who they know themselves to be, and were offered God’s healing grace just the way that straight people are?

This is my final issue as Editor-in-Chief of Closing Remarks. I have helped put together three such issues—each with an incredibly different flavor—and am very proud of the product we put out.

In a similar vein, this issue of Closing Remarks comes to you with a flavor all its own. Phil Burns’ “Taking a Second Look at Christian Homosexuality” is, perhaps, the first article we’ve published on topic about which there is widespread disagreement. For Christians, the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage, regardless of which side you fall on, proves to be powerful. Its mere discussion is responsible for tearing apart congregations and even entire denominations.

But that is why we created Closing Remarks. It is our dream that the pages of this magazine become a place for Christians and non-Christians alike to debate Christian things. The nature of God and the likelihood of His existence, how to read the Bible, and the role of the church in modern society are all fair game.

We live in a world where secularization has made organized religion and belief in the necessity of God obsolete for large portions of society. The church lives among this reality, and as a result is working to find its niche. Some evangelical churches are liberalizing as a result. They work to discover where they stand on issues of environmentalism, homosexuality, and spirituality. The Catholic Church has undergone a similar debate. In 1962 it began the Second Vatican Council in an attempt to match dogma with the modern human experience all the while attempting to maintain an air of orthodoxy.

It is to say that questions about the Christian Church’s place in society are nothing new. And, naturally, part of reorganizing necessitates healthy debate. Hundreds of years ago the church debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin or whether harmonic music was too sensual to play in church. Today, the church debates the nature of sexuality, the role of gender, environmentalism, the relevancy of the church itself and many other complex issues. I predict that these issues won’t go away. To that end, I say goodbye to all of you. I hope that your four years at Brown are as fulfilling for you as mine have been for me. It is my prayer that each of you continually and earnestly seek truth. And I hope that Closing Remarks becomes a place that helps in that search.

I and others involved in the production of this magazine have rightly questioned what it means to have a “Christian” magazine. Will “non-Christian” voices be excluded from publication? Does Christianity or faith imply certain goals and/or common beliefs? Will the editors attempt to define what these goals and beliefs properly are? Are these pages best devoted to use as a forum, a canvas, a pulpit, or perhaps to something else altogether?

As I looked through the works submitted for this issue of Closing Remarks, a passage of the New Testament that describes faith as “the substance of things hoped for” came to mind. I think that hope, and the strivings and journeys that it entails might just provide one of the most cohesive explanations for what this magazine is about. My belief in God underpins my conviction that hope, faith, and love are properly taken away from no one. That’s why this magazine is for everyone.

The substance of things hoped for can assume diverse forms, whether it be a pilgrimage into the real world, critical reflection on faith and life decisions, calls for change in the world, or artistic expression of the epic journey of living faith. For myself, I hope that this magazine remains a place where the substance of hope and faith can take form in the context of the amazing openness and freedom that is our beloved Brown. In Deo Speramus.

I started my college journey in Atlanta at Georgia Tech. It was a fine school filled with wonderful people. But something irked me about it: perhaps the career-focused mentality of my peers, perhaps the engineering-focused mentality of the faculty. But most of all I was irked by Georgia Tech’s lack of snob appeal. It did, after all, admit students with only mediocre SAT scores. So I packed my bags, bid adieu to many loyal friends, and headed to the frozen north where I could realize my true potential in the Ivy League.

Two years later, studying at Brown had lost its luster. The suffocating academic atmosphere hindered true learning and prevented me from tackling the world as I intended. I was taking out student loans the size of small countries to pay for an education that gave me nothing in return other than the constant harassment of professors who didn’t appreciate my work.

In the face of such a dilemma, I did what any reasonable person would have done: failed half my classes, dropped out of school, and moved around the Northeast pursuing various jobs as a financial software developer. A year later, that too had become dull. Back to Brown I went, alone and ashamed, ready to suck it up and finish school.

There is no justice in the world. The professors whose wisdom I had scorned readmitted me to the University I had so disparaged. The friends whose worth I had so casually written off welcomed me back with open arms. The family members who invested years of their lives in helping me succeed academically simply shrugged and re-asserted that they would love me with or without a degree.

This time I think I get it. I’ve learned my lesson. No more running away. For real. Commitment cannot wait until I find the perfect environment in which to pursue the perfect goals. Oswald Chambers claims, “God will never reveal more truth about Himself until you have obeyed what you know already.” That’s tough to swallow. We can travel the world seeking greater and greater accomplishments, but that will not please God as much as a humble acceptance of our current responsibilities.

The great Roman hero Cincinnatus understood his responsibilities. One day while plowing his fields, he was approached by the Senate and offered a job. Rome was under attack, and a leader was needed to unite the nation and fend off her enemies. Cincinnatus hesitantly accepted that leadership role and a six-month term as Dictator. His family would have no food if he was unable to tend his crops for too long, so he had to hurry. A mere sixteen days later Rome’s enemies were defeated, order was restored, and Cincinnatus was a hero. He relinquished his dictatorial position and returned to his farm. Could he have clung to power and gone down in history like Nero or Julius? Could he have used that power to bring prosperity to his family? Perhaps. But Cincinnatus understood his role. When duty to his state was necessary, he served the state. When duty to his family was necessary, he served his family. At some point he surely questioned his commitments. But because he refused to abandon either his country or his family for personal ambitions, he lived the rest of his days as a hero. His rewards were the respect of his community, the love of his family, a statue in Ohio, and a Wikipedia entry.

God commands us to be faithful and committed to those who depend on us. The greatest of His heroes are those who have done so. Ruth promised to care for her widowed mother-in-law Naomi despite the economic ruin it would mean for her. “Where you go I will go,” she said.“Where you die I will die.” Ruth’s legacy has lasted millennia. So has that of Moses, who was told that he would not reach the land of Israel to which he was guiding the Jews who had followed him from Egypt. Rather than retiring or settling down in a comfortable home, Moses continued to toil, trekking through the desert so that his followers and their children could enjoy Israel.

We all depend on one another. Ruth depended on Naomi as much as Naomi depended on Ruth. Moses depended on the Israelites as much as they depended on him. When I left Brown, I left knowing that my professors depended on their students. Now I know that students also depend on their professors. I need them to pursue knowledge and pass on that knowledge so that the world does not fall into the darkness of ignorance. My professors have remained committed to my education; it is only right that I remain committed to them.

So on I trek, sometimes miserable in my toil, sometimes content with God’s guidance. Such is life. None of us know what fruit our commitments will bear. Some of them may be completely barren. Or like Moses, they may bring great joy to others while seemingly leaving us empty handed. But maybe, just maybe, they’ll fulfill God’s plan in a way that is so breathtakingly amazing that it makes everything worthwhile. The only way I’ll know for sure, is to stay committed to what God has put in front of me.

The bird with her wings clipped,
forever imprisoned
by an action from the past.
She can count the ceiling boards,
but never escape them,
never fly free among them.
A broken heart is not
clipped wings.
It heals itself, in time –
though that time may seem
an Eternity.
While the ability to fly
never returns,
the ability to love is
Relentless and Immovable.
The human heart
receives treatment from He who knows all.
In His grace and splendor,
He can even mend her wings.

I go out to the mail box
barefoot,
Glad to feel something solid beneath me.
The sun is holding court
in an iridescent blue sky—
Even though it seemed
earlier
that the day would bring
only rain.

I am glad, but not happy.

I almost cry
writing this
when I realize
just how much
is solid
underneath
my steps

-Is hard, Is sure, Is firmwhen

I am looking for a place
to be safe.
I hate
being at war with myself,
with what is not myself.
I want the luxury not to have
to fight
what is base in me;

Not to scowl at my
image in the mirror;
Not to have to force the
feeling out of my eyes,
quench the soul to satiate the flesh.

Sick of personal pronouns,
of all my moods
wearing me down,
of energy that crashes faster than it fuels.

emotion feels
so
close
to the surface.
tears.

But this is only a moment,
the plop of a stone in
water.

Soon

It will be over and only the ripples
of my response
remain

`Youth’s a fleeting light,
all too soon covered
by the shadows of old age.
Yet this does not need to
be an inevitable fact –
one can keep the light
burning until death.
This possibility, like all others,
relies on choices
and on the heart’s strength.
Whether they find you
shaking with fear
on the bathroom floor,
depends on your decision
to let the shadows of fear
overcome the light of love.
If you close your eyes to faith,
all you find is your eyelid.
If you open your eyes to grace,
you see truth.
Reflected in every pupil
is the life within.
Be careful, however, with whom
you reveal this image to.
Many take pleasure in
discovering, conquering, and massacring.
Don’t allow your heart to become
like the extinct indigenous tribes of this land.
Protect it, but don’t suffocate it.
Doubt and anxiety are
as dangerous as carelessness.
Balance is necessary,
but don’t make your life
a judicial system.
Time will take care of justice –
she will reveal everything
as she develops.
Only she can tell
if this young love will last.