"Lead Us Not Into Temptation..."

One line from the Lord's Prayer reads as follows:

”And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

I thought of this prayer as I watched a fascinating movie over the weekend, Todd Field's “Little Children,” starring Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson. Based on a book by Tom Perrotta, the movie is richly layered, superbly acted, deeply moving, and profoundly provocative. This review is categorized into two sections: “temptation” and “evil.” Let's look at the following questions:

* Is falling into “temptation” necessarily a bad thing? Are there circumstances in which we become enriched by indulging in temptation?

* How do we characterize “evil”? How do we interface with “evil”?

Warning: the following contains "spoilers" - if you haven't seen the movie "Little Children," and you don't want to know the plot, skip reading this!

"Temptation"

Winslet plays Sarah, a disillusioned young woman, bored with her life as a mother to young Lucy. As a housewife in an upscale New England suburb, many aspects of her life are alien to her, except for her “Room of One's Own,” (Virginia Woolf reference duly noted), where she reads and contemplates her beloved novels and poetry. To make matters worse, she is estranged from her husband; one afternoon she discovers to her disgust that he regularly masturbates while surfing Internet porn (“Slutty Kay” and kitchen utensils?!). This discovery imposes a wide gulf between Sarah and her husband. So wide, in fact, that she relegates her husband to the couch, implying a complete lack of intimacy.

Sarah has a Master's degree in English (she never quite finished her dissertation), and she longs for the intellectual stimulation that her studies provided; but instead she spends her days at the local park with other local moms and their children. The other stay-at-home moms cause conflicting emotions within Sarah. She is alienated by what she perceives as their smallness and cattiness; and yet she also feels inadequate because she's not a militantly organized “super-mom” as the other moms are. This is the community she's “supposed to” feel close to, but she can't bring herself to identify with these women.

Then, a local “house-husband” named Brad enters the picture to stir things up. Though they never actually speak to him, the women at the park have tagged Brad the “Prom King,” as he is exceptionally handsome. Sarah agrees with their assessment, but isn’t as intimidated. On a dare from the other women, Sarah approaches him at the park one morning. (She perceives this as an opportunity to differentiate herself from the other women.) Brad and Sarah strike up small-talk as they push their respective children on the swings. Sarah is struck by how authentic and vulnerable Brad seems as he describes how he’s failed the bar exam twice. As Brad prepares to leave the park, Sarah makes a bold and spontaneous move; she proposes to Brad that they hug in front of the other women. Though they’ve just met, Brad plays along. Immediately after the hug, Sarah follows an impulse to crank up the tension; she suggests that they kiss. Suddenly they share an awkward but intimate kiss on the playground, to the great shock and horror of the other women at the park. This hug and kiss assuages Sarah's sense of alienation and inadequacy (temporarily, at least). And so begins an adulterous affair between Sarah and Brad. The two share their summer days at the local pool with their kids, and then, while the kids nap, indulge in steamy unbridled sex.

The emotional aspect of the affair is most interesting to me. Clearly, both Sarah and Brad share a lustful appetite for each other. But Sarah longs for something more; she covets an emotional connection to mitigate the idea that this affair is exclusively sexual. One afternoon, during sex, Sarah asks Brad, "is your wife pretty?" (According to the book, the character of Sarah is supposed to be a somewhat homely, frumpy woman who feels insecure about her looks. But frankly it's hard for Kate Winslet to look homely and/or frumpy; she's such a beautiful woman, though not the typical "Hollywood-type" beauty.) Brad pleads, “do we have to talk about this now?” and ignores her inquiry, as if it's an inconvenience. She asks again, saying this time, "it's a simple question." But Brad lacks any pretense of emotional intelligence. "Yes, she’s very pretty," he says, without a hint of irony. Later he confides that his wife is “a knock-out,” but then follows up with, "but beauty is overrated." As the narrator points out, this is an easy statement for a beautiful person to make. Sarah is quietly devastated. The subtext of Sarah's question was to engage Brad to notice and acknowledge her own beauty, as he saw her. Rather than sing the praises of Sarah's beauty, Brad answers the question literally, and he completely fails to respond to her desire for an emotional (rather than a purely sexual) connection. We also gain insight from another brief exchange; Brad asks Sarah as they're having sex, "Do you feel bad about this?" "No, I don't," replies Sarah emphatically. Brad replies, "I do. I feel really bad." (Though his “feeling bad” doesn’t seem to diminish his carnal enjoyment.) Sarah's lack of guilt and shame is an offering to Brad of her genuine emotional engagement in this affair. To Sarah, this isn't just sex; she perceives this relationship as having the potential to grow into something "real." But for Brad, this affair is a happy carnal diversion, with none of Sarah’s earnest emotional engagement.

Brad's narcissism ultimately dooms the affair. Sarah is so desperate to “legitimize” her relationship with Brad that she tells Brad that she “can't go on” in the shadows anymore. Brad takes the bait and tells her, “...let's run away together and figure this thing out.” Sarah is elated with the prospect of it. Like two teenagers, they agree to “run away together.” Except that Brad's cowardice combined with his allegiance to his wife (and perhaps his fear of his mother-in-law) ultimately triumph. (Or perhaps it is not entirely fair to characterize Brad as a “coward,” since I think he feels somewhat emasculated as a “house-husband,” completely reliant on his wife and her family for income. Surely it is a blow to his ego when his wife chastises him for ordering magazine subscriptions that he doesn't really “need.” But Brad may be too comfortable with his house-husband status, and unwilling to grapple with the implications of entering the work-force to earn a living in this “man's world.” He might have to actually study and take the bar exam!)

Within this context of compromise, Brad writes a “Dear John...” letter to his wife, but takes the letter with him rather than leaving it where she'll find it. Then, on his way to meet Sarah to enact their great escape together, Brad decides on a whim that it would be more entertaining to skateboard with the local teens at the skate park. When Sarah realizes that Brad has stood her up, her devastation is compounded by her ultimate realization that she was willing to risk her child's safety and future to pursue this ill-fated relationship with an emasculated man. Sarah returns home with her daughter and tucks her in bed, utterly crushed by Brad's choices as well as her own perceived failings.

So what's the “moral” here? Both Sarah and Brad freely chose to “live in the moment” and indulge in temptation. Both Sarah and Brad were dissatisfied with their respective home lives, and found passion and excitement in each other. Despite the ultimately ill-fated course of the relationship, was there nothing redeeming about it? Sarah was able to live out her “Madame Bovary” complex and indulge in an affair that briefly assuaged her assaulted sense of self as a suburban housewife. She took solace from the idea that she was different from other stay-at-home moms. At the end of the affair, she can go on knowing that she made choices and took actions to free herself from her current unhappiness, even if these choices and actions resulted in an outcome she did not anticipate (or perhaps she did anticipate, but chose to ignore). Brad was less vulnerable to the emotional entanglements of the affair (since he was “the beautiful one” and clearly a narcissist), and he benefited from realizing that, despite the alienation from his wife, he did not want to risk losing her and all the comforts that she provides for him. And both Sarah and Brad learned that while we may no longer be teenagers, we can still experience the same ferocious euphoria and profound devastation that can come from indulging in lustful desire. Indulging in temptation can have the temporary but profoundly real effect of making us feel “alive.” Are Sarah and Brad “sinners,” or are they fallible human beings subject to the most basic human frailty of desire and longing, despite the inherent risks and unknowable outcomes?

"Evil"

If the core of the movie is "temptation," the sub-plot of "Little Children" is "evil." A sex offender named Ronnie, having served time for exposing himself to minors, lives in the same neighborhood as Sarah and Brad. Ronnie lives with his elderly mother, in an old house filled with antique clocks. A local ex-cop leads a campaign to inform the community of this sex-offender within the neighborhood, posting flyers and harassing Ronnie at all hours. He even goes so far as to spray paint "EVIL" on the front walk leading to Ronnie's house. The relationship between Ronnie and his mother is touching but also somewhat unnerving. During one conversation, Ronnie's mother prophetically marvels at how fragile life is. "You're a miracle, Ronnie. We're all miracles. Know why? Because as humans, every day we go about our business, and all that time we know... we all know... that the things we love... the people we love, at any time now can all be taken away. We live knowing that and we keep going anyway." His mother, growing concerned at her failing health and the prospect of Ronnie living alone, decides to put a singles ad in the paper for her son. "Mom, I have a psycho-sexual disorder," Ronnie protests. But he agrees to go on the date. The date seems to go well, as Ronnie gently attempts to relate to the young woman - a tragic victim of mental illness herself. At one point during the date, Ronnie says to his her, “…you’re not so bad.” (Pathetically, the woman finds this bland attempt at a complement as rather endearing.) But gentleness evolves into monstrosity on the way home, as he asks her to stop the car and then proceeds to perform a lewd act in her presence. Aghast and terrified, she drops him off at home and speeds away.

Clearly, Ronnie is mentally ill, and he is aware of his illness. But is he "evil"? The tragedy is that he isn't getting the treatment or attention he needs. He is cast as a social pariah, rejected and scorned where ever he goes. One afternoon, he visited the local pool and was publicly humiliated; the entire pool was vacated and the cops arrived to demand that he leave the premises. "I was just trying to cool off," he protested. The mob mentality exhibited at the pool surely cemented Ronnie’s feelings of isolation.

Ronnie certainly suffers from tendencies that are arguably "evil," but society's “mob mentality” and lack of empathy and compassion are arguably just as evil. When his mother dies, he decompensates, as the only thread he had to humanity unraveled. He reads a note from his mother that she wrote on her death bed, which simply states, "Be a good boy." Utterly distraught, because he knows he can't be a "good boy" without her, he mutilates himself with a knife, and the tragedy is complete. Despite his illness, Ronnie is a human being who deserves our compassion and mercy to help him treat his illness, instead of ostracizing and dehumanizing him. But as long as the "evil-doer" (in this case, Ronnie) is available as the easy target for scorn and fury, it exonerates the local suburbanites from looking too deeply at themselves. Ronnie's "evilness" is insidious precisely because it's too obvious, and because it diverts us from the genuine Spiritual path of examining our own behaviors, actions and attitudes toward our fellow humans.

We're All African

The following article originally appeared in Vanity Fair's "Africa" Issue, Summer 2007.

Get this: every single one of us is from Africa! Read this, it will blow you away. It really underscores the fact that everyone is our neighbor.

Out of Africa

Somewhere between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago, Africa saved Homo sapiens from extinction. Charting the DNA shared by more than six billion people, a population geneticist—and director of the Genographic Project—suggests what humanity "owes" its first home.

by Spencer Wells July 2007

For more about the Genographic Project, visit nationalgeographic.com.

Guest editor Bono as a toddler, circa 1961, with maps showing the migrations of his matrilineal (top) and patrilineal ancestors (middle), based on analysis of his DNA. His father's ancestors were among the first modern humans to enter Europe. Courtesy of the Hewson family.

Do you think you know who you are? Maybe Irish, Italian, Jewish, Chinese, or one of the dozens of other hyphenated Americans that make up the United States melting pot? Think deeper—beyond the past few hundred years. Back beyond genealogy, where everyone loses track of his or her ancestry—back in that dark, mysterious realm we call prehistory. What if I told you every single person in America—every single person on earth—is African? With a small scrape of cells from the inside of anyone's cheek, the science of genetics can even prove it.

Here's how it works. The human genome, the blueprint that describes how to make another version of you, is huge. It's composed of billions of sub-units called nucleotides, repeated in a long, linear code that contains all of your biological information. Skin color, hair type, the way you metabolize milk: it's all in there. You got your DNA from your parents, who got it from theirs, and so on, for millions of generations to the very beginning of life on earth. If you go far enough back, your genome connects you with bacteria, butterflies, and barracuda—the great chain of being linked together through DNA.

What about humanity, though? What about creatures you would recognize as being like you if they were peering over your shoulder right now? It turns out that every person alive today can trace his or her ancestry back to Africa. Everyone's DNA tells a story of a journey from an African homeland to wherever you live. You may be from Cambodia or County Cork, but you are carrying a map inside your genome that describes the wanderings of your ancestors as they moved from the savannas of Africa to wherever your family came from most recently. This is thanks to genetic markers—tiny changes that arise rarely and spontaneously as our DNA is copied and passed down through the generations—which serve to unite people on ever older branches of the human family tree. If you share a marker with someone, you share an ancestor with him or her at some point in the past: the person whose DNA first had the marker that defines your shared lineage. These markers can be traced to relatively specific times and places as humans moved across the globe. The farther back in time and the closer to Africa we get, the more markers we all share.

What set these migrations in motion? Climate change—today's big threat—seems to have had a long history of tormenting our species. Around 70,000 years ago it was getting very nippy in the northern part of the globe, with ice sheets bearing down on Seattle and New York; this was the last Ice Age. At that time, though, our species, Homo sapiens, was still limited to Africa; we were very much homebodies. But the encroaching Ice Age, perhaps coupled with the eruption of a super-volcano named Toba, in Sumatra, dried out the tropics and nearly decimated the early human population. While Homo sapiens can be traced to around 200,000 years ago in the fossil record, it is remarkably difficult to find an archaeological record of our species between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago, and genetic data suggest that the population eventually dwindled to as few as 2,000 individuals. Yes, 2,000—fewer than fit into many symphony halls. We were on the brink of extinction.

And then something happened. It began slowly, with only a few hints of the explosion to come: The first stirrings were art—tangible evidence of advanced, abstract thought—and a significant improvement in the types of tools humans made. Then, around 50,000 years ago, all hell broke loose. The human population began to expand, first in Africa, then leaving the homeland to spread into Eurasia. Within a couple of thousand years we had reached Australia, walking along the coast of South Asia. A slightly later wave of expansion into the Middle East, around 45,000 years ago, was aided by a brief damp period in the Sahara. Within 15,000 years of the exodus from Africa our species had entered Europe, defeating the Neanderthals in the process. (Neanderthals are distant cousins, not ancestors; our evolutionary lineages have been separate for more than 500,000 years.) We had also populated Asia, learning to live in frigid temperatures not unlike those on the Moon, and around 15,000 years ago we walked across a short-lived, icy land bridge to enter the Americas—the first hominids ever to set foot on the continents of the Western Hemisphere. Along the way we kept adapting to new climates, in some cases lost our dark tropical skin pigmentation, developed different languages, and generated the complex tapestry of human diversity we see around the world today, from Africa to Iceland to Tierra del Fuego. But the thing that set it all in motion, the thing that saved us from extinction, happened first in Africa. Some anthropologists call it the Great Leap Forward, and it marked the true origin of our species—the time when we started to behave like humans.

Africa gave us the tool we needed, in the form of a powerful, abstract mind, to take on the world (and eventually to decode the markers in our DNA that make it possible to track our amazing journeys). Perhaps just a few small genetic mutations that appeared around 50,000 years ago gave humans the amazing minds we use to make sense of the confusing and challenging world around us. Using our incredible capacity to put abstract musing into practice, we have managed to populate every continent on earth, in the process increasing the size of our population from a paltry few thousand to more than six billion. Now, 50 millennia after that first spark, times have changed. A huge number of things have contributed to Africa's relative decline on the world stage, perhaps most important geography. As Jared Diamond describes in his masterly book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Eurasia, with its East-West axis, allowed the rapid latitudinal diffusion of ideas and tools that would give its populations a huge advantage after the initial leap out of Africa. Couple that with the results of colonial exploitation over the past five centuries, and Africa, despite many strengths and resources, is once again in need, as it was 70,000 years ago. This time, though, things are different.

The world population that was spawned in Africa now has the power to save it. We are all alive today because of what happened to a small group of hungry Africans around 50,000 years ago. As their good sons and daughters, those of us who left, whether long ago or more recently, surely have a moral imperative to use our gifts to support our cousins who stayed. It's the least we can do for the continent that saved us all thousands of years ago.

For more about the Genographic Project, visit nationalgeographic.com.

Dr. Spencer Wells is explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society and the director of the Genographic Project.

Dr. Weil's "8 Weeks"

Dr. Andrew Weil is one of my heroes. He's written many books abouts about health, and many revisions thereof. Perhaps his most widely read book is called "8 Weeks to Optimum Health." This book is a God-send for people in this crazy, modern world. In a nutshell, he espouses all the "standard" healthy behaviors that we should all aspire to, such as:

* quit smoking
* exercise (gently; walking is great - no need for torture machines at the gym)
* eat nutritious, whole foods; nothing processed, fried, transfat-ladden, etc., et al.
* drinks lots of water
* limit alcohol consumption
* get enough sleep
* reduce your stress levels
* ...blah blah blah, and all the other pretty much "common sense" behaviors that we've all heard before, from a million different "experts" in a million different ways. None of these recommended behaviors should come as a surprise.

But these "standard" recommendations are not why I love Dr. Weil. What I truly appreciate about Dr. Weil's approach is that he espouses two things that are not necessarily "common sense":

* include beauty as an integral part of your life
* go on a "news fast"

The first one, "include beauty...," I think is something that is just as critical as eating right and exercising (and all the other standards). Dr. Weil recommends that we should always consider our surroundings, and make efforts to "beautify" our world. How? In simply ways. For example:

* buy fresh flowers every week; better yet, plant your own
* take a walk in a local park, a Japanese garden, or visit the beach and/or the mountains as frequently as possible
* visit museums and art galleries often
* attend cultural events, such as the ballet or a concert
* decorate your home and office with beautiful things
* etc. Use your imagination!

In this "beauty" recommendation, Dr. Weil recognizes that our spirits are central to our well-being; beautiful things uplift our spirits, and can have a profound effect on our spiritual and emotional lives. It's cliched, but we can't live on bread alone. One of the things that differentiates us as "human" is our ability to create and appreciate beautiful things. We shouldn't underestimate how important beauty is to our health and overall sense of well-being.

The other aspect that Dr. Weil touts is something he calls "news fasting." What in the world is "news fasting"? "News fasting" is essentially just what you think it might be: go on a "fast" from consuming "the news." That is, stop watching the nightly news, CNN, Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC. Also, stop surfing the various and myriad sources of news on the Internet. Why? Because let's face it: the "news" can be overwhelmingly depressing. And whether we realize it or not, it can have a profound effect on our "state of mind" when we are constantly bombarded with tragedy. Now, Dr. Weil does not suggest that we bury our heads in the sand and live life as a Pollyana. He simply recommends that we consume "news" in smaller doses and avoid the indulgent "rubber necking" that is frequently associated with gratuitous consumption of the "news." Think about this: if you only read The New York Times every Sunday, from cover to cover, there's a good chance that you'd be "up-to-date" on current affairs. And you could instead spend the time that you'd normally spend "consuming news" on such activities as going for a walk, pursuing a hobby, or sitting in the stands of your local AAA baseball team.

Thank you, Dr. Weil, for providing such beneficial recommendations that truly will contribute to health.

Desire, Divinely Inspired

One of the common misunderstandings of Buddhism is the notion that "desire" is the root of all suffering. Actually, it's not exactly "desire" that causes suffering; it is our behavior in response to our desire. More precisely, great suffering is caused when we "cling" to the objects of our desire. And the "object" of our desire is not merely the "object" of our desire; we must come to grips with the fact that he or she is a whole human being. When we acknowledge and truly embrace the other person's whole humanity, our desire is mitigated in a healthy way.

Freud also dabbled in this notion of "desire" as a cause of suffering. But he also believed that we don't control who we desire, but that we do control how we respond to that desire. It's another way of saying that we can't control who we desire; but we don't have to feel guilt and shame about it.

Indeed, I would agree that we don't control who we desire. It's something that we just "feel." This can be somehow liberating if we understand that we are not "responsible" for our feelings of desire. Mark Epstein, author of "Open to Desire: The Truth about What the Buddha Taught," expounds on the idea that desire need not be a cause of suffering and can actually deepen our spiritual lives. He suggests that if we can free ourselves from the guilt and shame of our desire, and just "be" with our desire, we can potentially experience it in new ways that we may not have predicted. From the book:

"Seeing desire as having its own agenda frees us to look at it more evenly. As Sappho observed so many years ago, it comes from elsewhere, stirs us up, makes us question who exactly is in change, and carries the possibility of enrichment as well as the threat of obsession. From this perspective, the arising of desire becomes an opportunity to question, not what we desire, nor what we do with desire, nor even how we make sense out of desire, but what does desire want from us? What is its teaching? We have to be very quiet to listen to desire in this way."

And let's face it: throughout life, we will encounter many situations in which we cannot consummate our desire. Of course, there are many reasons why we don't pursue desire; some of these reasons are:

* one or both parties is in a monogamous relationship
* religious convictions (denying the "flesh," so-to-speak)
* there is simply too much at stake to risk it
* the timing is all wrong
* the desire is unrequited (perhaps the most painful reason)
* the pursuit of desire may put at risk an underlying friendship
* all or any of the above

The list of circumstances that prevents the consummation of desire is long and often complicated. So the key really is to just "be" with our desire, to listen to it, to experience it quietly and not cling to idealized manifestations of consummating the desire.

So are we bound to a life of longing and the ache of unconsummated desire? No, not necessarily. There are coping strategies that we can employ. So this idea of just "being" with our desire, to be open to it, to acknowledge it, to experience it "as is," is fascinating to me. So, what we "do" with our desire will determine how much we suffer. If we can feel our desire "as is," and not cling to it, and not reject it, we have a better chance of diminishing our suffering. Within this context, we have to realize that the satisfaction we think we can get through the consummation of desire is in and of itself ultimately elusive (this reminds me of the Stones' song, "Satisfaction," as in, "I can't get no..."). Deep personal contentment and satisfaction are internal to ourselves; it is a myth that another person can assuage our loneliness and satisfy all our desires.

Another coping strategy is to revere desire as beautiful and mysterious and even divinely inspired. Another passage from the book:

"The next principle of working with desire is to see it as divine. By this, I do not mean simply idealizing the beloved in the manner common in early stages of falling in love, although this is an eye-opening experience in itself. I mean the recognition of how incredible it is to be capable of desiring, or being desired, in the first place. Especially when stripped of all the addictive fixations that can accrue, the mere existence of desire as an energy that can enthuse us is awe inspiring. The recognition of the divine in desire is less about moving toward an ideal than it is about acknowledging its immanence."

I love this excerpt! So, our very emotions are divinely inspired. He continues:

"Everything we see and whatever we desire can be experienced as signs of God's presence. The blue threads, knotted to Moses's clothing, are visceral reminders of this truth, but our own desires can function in much the same way. They, too, are threads of blue, living representations of God's blessings. This is where the spiritual possibilities of desire begin to make sense. Just as the Indian cosmologies refuse to make a distinction between the microcosm and the macrocosm, between the erotic and the divine, so does the Sh'ma seem to indicate a similar linkage. By attending to desire with the same care that we might listen to our souls, we can move out of our usual way of thinking where there are always two: an observer and an observed. The Sh'ma points to non-clinging, toward the dakini, toward the shared subjective reality where there is no object of any kind."

So, in other words, it's all good. It's OK to feel how we feel. Just don't cling to idealized notions of how you "want" things to be. Experience desire "as is," respect the feelings you have, and feel the beauty and wonder and mystery and divinity of just having those feelings in the first place. One more excerpt from the book:

"By learning to see desire as more of an impersonal force, as happens under the spell of prayer, meditation or psychotherapy, the soul is invigorated. The links between desire and the divine are opened as the self's appropriation of desire is loosened. Like a knot around the finger, desire, ever present and often troublesome, can serve as a vivid reminder of our connection to something vaster than over everyday minds."

And finally, this thought: that love (Platonic, "pure" love, that is) is superior anyway to sexual desire. I would tend to agree with this idea overall, because it seems that sexual longing often wanes, while love is a continuing cycle of renewal and replenishment. And it is a reminder that our bodies are transient and temporary, while our spirits are forever. In a way, I can take solace from the idea of nourishing my spirit (especially if my body suffers from longing). Let us live and walk by the Spirit.

Walk by the Spirit, Galatians 5:1, 13-25

1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

5For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.

6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

7You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

8This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.

9A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.

10I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.

11But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.

12I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

13For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

14For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

15But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.

17For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,

20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,

21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

24Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

25If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.