Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Thou shalt have a place also without the camp,
When I was a headmaster, I used the dung paddle as an illustration to teach my faculty and staff how to get rid of, well, let's just call it "dung," anything that polluted the school environment: gossip, unkindness, criticism, anger, triteness, foolishness, superficiality, wasted time, foolish words, bad ideas, and anything else that "stunk": "If its dung," I would tell them, "get rid of it, bury it, cover it up, and certainly do not bring it to me." This applies to all professions, and everyone who works with other human beings knows how one's own and others' "dung" fouls the environment. "dung" also pollutes every imaginable setting: families, churches, social networks, etc. We might not always understand it, but we know it when we smell it (:>).
So let every soldier remember - that strange contraption hanging by your sword, the dung paddle, is there for a reason. You will need it often, probably every day, so use it. Get the stuff out of your camp, get rid of it, bury it, forget it, and march on.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
After Love, Faith is oftened preached and discussed, unless one is a holy-roller, and then Faith is perverted and proffered in a thousand wicked ways. Even more orthodox settings contemplate faith at only superficial levels, viz, faith is an ambiguous wish that things will get better, or faith is something I do. The truth is that Faith, as a transformative experience, is a miraculous and sovereign “gift of God” or, as Paul calls Faith, “the fruit of the Spirit,” the Holy Spirit being the root and branch of the fruit, Faith. Theologically, genuine Faith is objectified by divine revelation, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God”; that is, one errs to think of faith as a wishful want or a wiggle of the will. Faith is neither ambiguous nor mysterious but rather always illuminated by “thus saith the Lord.” The Word objectifies Faith, to which legitimate spiritual experience tangibly attests. Faith as wishing and willing is probably the byproduct of confusing Faith with Hope.
Unlike Faith, which may always be objectifed in light of divine revelation and certifiable spiritual experience, Hope is more ethereal, transcendent, and mysterious. Faith confirms revelation, and revelation confirms Faith, but Hope arises in the heart and reaches beyond the known into the unknown, “hope that is seen, is not hope.” But Hope does not reach into a void. While Faith embraces the Word of God, Hope embraces the nature of God, particularly the Goodness of God. Hope may not have “a word from the LORD” about this or that, but Hope knows that God is Great, and that God is Good, and therefore Hope is like “an anchor of the soul,” securing and stabilizing the soul, especially in dark tempests and stormy waters. Hope may not see a guiding star or harbor light, but Hope knows her Captain’s hand is upon the rudder no matter the gale.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Daily we fail ethically and emotionally at the duties and beauties of Love; infamously, we fail even worse when we acknowledge that both the law and grace command us to love Yahweh Elohim with all our minds. From both psychological and theological perspectives, “the mind” refers to volition (will), sanction (conscience), and contemplation (intellect).
Although the concept of “mind” as rational intellect is not immediately obvious to the original instance of “love Yahweh Elohim . . . with all thy heart,” but rather implicit to the word leb, usually translated “heart,” nonetheless, leb does comprehend rational intellect and, therefore, inherent to the commandment is what one might call an implicit duty to love God with one’s mind. The LXX translators either did not choose to emphasize this intellectual dimension of love or perhaps overlooked the intellectual aspect of leb, but all three synoptic writers amended the insufficient LXX rendering to include an intellectual responsibility to love God with one’s mind; for instance, both Matthew and Luke add the term dianoia, and Mark even more emphatically employs the term suneseos, “understanding” or “comprehension.” Hence, despite the LXX oversight, both the Masoretic text and the GNT strongly emphasize the importance of loving God with one’s “mind” or “understanding,” viz., spiritual intellect. That begs the question, “How does one love God with the mind or understanding?”
To answer first, to love God with one’s mind, one should use his/her mind. It sounds like a cliché, “use your mind,” but St. Paul instructs that, whatever we do, should be done passionately, and that includes thinking. We might add that serious thinking usually requires some external stimulus to the brain. A really good book, not necessarily an entertaining one, is perhaps the best external source for intellectual stimulation.
Secondly, to love God with all one’s mind includes a high responsibility to sanctify the mind from the vulgar, mundane, and commonplace, and ennoble the mind through aesthetically transcendent contemplation. Of course, most of us do not live in a monastery so that we can devote 18 hours per day to the study of scripture, but rather we find ourselves thrust out into the cruel streets of secular chaos as cosmic orphans; in that sad estate, we must learn to look past the sewage in the streets, through the polluted atmosphere that surrounds us, and find roses among thorns, lilies in the thickets, and rainbows in the thunder. Art, literature, and music, especially of the classical and secular sort, are like beams of light through the darkness that, although they will not take us to heaven, certainly can make us feel (and think) that we are on the way. This duty to transcendence also demands that we learn to turn every conversation heavenward, not that we should aim to quote a Bible verse every time we engage in conversation, but rather that we should endeavor to make every conversation more meaningful, always leading conversants away from discussion of persons and events to interesting ideas and, hopefully, some affirmation of absolute truth. The ability to converse in a meaningful manner is both a science and art, learned by very few, and one that every thinking individual, Christian or otherwise, should endeavor to cultivate within himself.
Of course, the highest ennoblement of the mind derives from meditation upon Holy Scripture, whereby the will is restrained and redirected to absolute good, the conscience enlightened with righteousness, and the intellect charmed and transfigured by contemplating “things above.” This dimension of loving God with one’s mind necessarily demands intensive study of Holy Scripture, the only completely reliable source of our knowledge of the Divine. The study of Holy Scripture augmented and energized by the didactic ministry of God the Holy Spirit, actually reveals to us the person and nature of the Godhead whom, if we know, we shall adore, that is, love. In addition, if we love God, we shall love those made in his image, even if they, like ourselves, are damaged and scarred by the ravages of sin. Again, Jesus Christ is our example, “a friend for sinners.”
Friday, November 6, 2009
An Allegory of Love, Loss, and Love
Dedicated to the little children of
The First Baptist Church of Parker, Texas
Once upon a time, but not so long ago, and in a place not so far away, a kindhearted King dwelt in a beautiful, ivory castle high upon a snowcapped mountain peak. Within the exquisite white castle, the King and the royal family lived blissfully, their days filled with delectable sights, sounds, and smells. Majestic peacocks strolled the castle lawn, spreading their iridescent tail feathers like Japanese fans of turquoise and jade. A symphony of pipes and harps and singers echoed through the palace chambers and great halls, charming every ear and cheering every heart. And the sweet aroma of freshly baked vanilla cherry-cakes, the King’s delight, always filled the air.
One fair and sunny morning, after his breakfast of vanilla cherry-cakes and steaming hot cinnamon cider, the kindly King called his faithful squire, “Saddle the big white, for today I shall ride into the green forest.”
“Yes, your majesty,” said the obedient squire, as he rose to make his way to the King’s stable.
The King had many beautiful horses of different breeds and radiant coats—a golden palomino; a shiny, black Arabian; a dappled mare of ginger and white—but the King’s favorite steed was the white stallion, which he called “Kareese” because of his graceful gait. “Your Majesty,” said the squire, “Kareese is saddled and bridled, awaiting my lord’s boot and spur.”
“Well done, good squire,” the King replied. TaKing the bridle in hand, the King mounted Kareese, his black boot catching the stirrup and lifting him astride the shining stallion. With a gentle nudge of the King’s boot heel, Kareese reared his front legs heavenward and then bolted suddenly toward the forest. Past the flower-laden palace grounds, then clippety-clop across the wooden bridge o’er the crystal moat, the King and Kareese galloped into the verdant forest. “Steady, boy, steady,” said the King to Kareese, tugging the bridle to slow the steed from a gallop to a lope, and then from a lope to a slow and graceful trot. The King delighted in the sounds and sights of the green forest—the symphony of singing birds; the gentle whisper of the wispy wind waving the leaves and branches; the butterflies’ delicate dance; the squirrels’ nervous jerKing and darting; and the hippity-hop, hide-and-seek of frightened cottontails that bounded away at the sound of Kareese’s hoof beats.
After about an hour’s ride, Kareese and the King came upon a sudden opening in the forest, a quiet meadow laced with yellow crocus. In the middle of the meadow, the King espied something he had never seen before, a wooden cabin with a brick chimney that blew grey smoke into the opalescent sky. “Whoa, Kareese!” said the King, as they stopped within the forest at the meadow’s edge. “Let us see what we have here, and whom.” The King observed the little cabin for only a few moments, and then suddenly the squeaky cabin door swung open and a young man stepped outside. The King supposed that the young man must be quite poor because of his run-down cabin, and when the young man emerged from his little shack, the King was then certain of his poverty. The pauper’s chemise was a patchwork of raggedy scraps from several old shirts he had sewn together to make a “new” one. The old shirt remnants, now interlaced as one, wove a hodgepodge of unpredictable color that made the pauper look as if he were a silly clown. His dingy, grey britches were likewise worn and tattered, but at least they were all of one color, except for the dark-blue patches on the knees. As for his hat, neither a vagabond nor a tramp would have worn that old ugly bonnet. The hat’s brown rim, once a perfect circle, now formed a dirty, crooked halo around the pauper’s head, the rats having gnawed and chewed the brim here and there. A dark sweat-stain circled the hatband all around, a sure sign of tiresome days spent toiling in last summer’s heat. The hat’s dome was rumpled and crumpled with a hole right in the middle, just big enough to rob the pauper of summer shade and winter warmth.
The King watched as the poor man fetched his sharp hoe and heavy axe to begin the day’s hard labor in the chilly morning breeze, hoeing the soil and planting his seed in hopes of a harvest of barley and beans in the distant autumn. After tending his garden, the pauper felled a tree with his great axe, and then set about chopping the limbs and trunk into pieces of firewood small enough for his fireplace so that he might warm his hands and feet in the hoarfrost spring. As the King studied the pauper at his heavy chores, the King’s heart stirred with compassion. “Poor man,” said he, “poor man, toiling all day for such a meager life. Poor man, poor man, indeed.” Then the King gently tugged at Kareese’s bridle, turning the stallion’s neck away from the young pauper in the meadow and toward the ivory castle high atop the great mountain by the azure sea.
On the seventh day, dawn’s rosy fingers spread across the heaven as the King and Kareese arrived once again at the lonely cabin in the yellow meadow. Just like every day before, the charcoal chimney-smoke swirled into the sky. Soon the creaky door swung wide and out stepped the poor pauper, ready for another day’s hard labor. At this sight, the King gently nudged Kareese to a fancy trot. At first, the pauper did not notice the King’s approach, but the gentle thud of hoof beats approaching on the grass, and the sudden sound of a strange voice summoned the poor man’s head to see the King astride the sallow steed loping towards him.
“Hail,” said the King. “Knowest thou who I am?”
“Nay, sir, I know thee not,” the pauper replied, “but I see from thy fair carriage and lordly manner that thou must be a nobleman.”
“I am,” said the King, “and more than a nobleman. I am your King.” At this word the pauper dropped his hoe, fell upon his knees, and bowed to the ground before the King.
“My lord,” said he, “forgive thy humble servant. I knew thee not.”
“I forgive thee,” said the King with gentle smile. “Arise, and stand upon thy feet.” The pauper rose but kept his head bowed low in the presence of his King.
“What brings thee here, My King, here to this humble hovel and to such a poor man as I?”
Replied the King, “I have come with something in my hand, something for you.”
“Yes, for you. Seize the bit while I dismount.” Obeying the King’s command, the pauper’s calloused hand grasped the silver bit in Kareese’s mouth. Dismounting, the King said, “Strap him there,” pointing to a stripling cedar just outside the cabin door. The pauper dutifully obeyed and tied Kareese’s bridle to the little cedar. “Farmer, what is thy name?” asked the King.
"It is a good name,” replied the King. “Ben Goodson, seven days ago I rode my great white stallion from the mountain castle to this fair meadow. I came upon your cabin, and watched you labor so hard to cultivate your ground and chop your wood. This I did every day until today, the seventh day. I vow you are a faithful man, faithful to his work, and thus faithful to your King. Ben Goodson,” the King continued, “today I bring something in my hand, something for you.” At this word, the King ungloved his hand and reached for a deerskin satchel strung astride Kareese’s saddle. Loosening its leather strands, the King reached inside the purse and drew out something in his clenched fist. Ben wondered to himself, “What can this be, this thing in the King’s hand for me?”
“Ben,” said the King, “This is for you.” As the King’s fist unfolded, a dart of light struck Ben’s eye so brightly that he had to blink and turn away. “Look here,” said the King. Ben looked again and, to his amazement, glittering in the King’s palm was a magnificent blue diamond, reflecting the morning sunlight with rainbow arrows jutting and darting from the diamond’s every facet, cut, and corner. “Ben, this is for you.”
“My King!” Ben exclaimed in disbelief, “this jewel for me!”
“Yes, Ben, for you, from the castle coffers. But, Ben,” the King cautioned, “while you may use this blue diamond to your good, you must remember that the jewel is mine. I loan it to you just for a little while, but it belongs to me, your King. You may share the jewel’s beauty and value with your family and friends, you may use it as you will to prosper, and you may adore its radiant beauty, but you must also remember that, as I now bequeath to you this shining stone, I shall one day take it again unto myself.”
“My lord,” said Ben, “thank you. You have made me a rich man, if only for a day.”
“I will remember,” Ben said. At this word, the King embraced Ben, bid him farewell, and mounted Kareese. Again, the King’s spur nudged the stallion’s flank, and Kareese bolted away from the cabin toward the royal forest. Just before he disappeared into the forest, the King reigned Kareese to a sudden stop, whirling around for one last look at loyal Ben. Kareese reared high, his silver mane rippling in the sunlight, as the King’s elegant hand waved a wide “goodbye” to the faithful pauper, now made rich by the King’s favor. “Farewell, Ben,” shouted the King, “Farewell! Remember, the blue diamond is yours to use, but mine to keep.” A tear came to Ben’s eye as he watched the King and Kareese disappear into the forest. The King’s voice echoed in Ben’s ear, “Farewell! Remember, yours to use, mine to keep.”
“I am he,” Ben replied.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Unbeknownst to Ben, the King’s compassionate eye had never turned away from Ben, the King’s benevolent hand never folded. The wise and kindly King had observed Ben throughout his possession of the blue diamond, observed his joy, his love, his goodness to other paupers, his prosperity, and his adoration of the jewel. But from the beginning the King had purposed to show Ben the jewel’s goodness and then, by taking the jewel from him, to remind Ben of the King’s sovereignty in the matter, and of the King’s favor as the first and final cause of Ben’s happiness. Eventually that moment came, when Ben’s heart had become too fixed on the blue diamond, and not fixed enough upon the King, when the King said to himself, “It is time, time to teach Ben the lesson of the Palace Treasury – ‘yours to use, mine to keep.’” Upon that premise the King sent his Captain with Five to retrieve the diamond from Ben’s possession. Little did Ben know that, as he placed the precious stone in the Captain’s hand, in the distance and just within the forest tree line, the King watched the transaction, watched Ben open the door, watched Ben’s countenance fall at the Captain’s word, watched Ben fetch the jewel, watched Ben surrender his treasure to the Captain, watched the Royal Guardsman gallop away, and watched Ben as he bade farewell to the diamond. Neither did Ben know that, every day since he had surrendered the blue diamond, the King had saddled Kareese early, ridden through the palace grounds, crossed the crystal moat, and traveled through the forest to observe Ben’s every action and listen to his every word. The King knew Ben’s sorrow and despair, knew his heart’s pain and, just like the first time he saw the pauper, the King yet had great compassion upon Ben. But the King was resolute that Ben should learn the lesson: the King, not the fair jewel, was Ben’s ultimate source of everything good in his life and, moreover, the King was the source of everything difficult in Ben’s life for Ben’s own good, even Ben’s surrender of the blue diamond. “Ben must learn to right his affections,” said the wise and kindly King, “to be loyal unto me in all things and at all times, especially in the hardest things and the most difficult times. But how,” the King asked himself, “how shall I know that Ben has learned that lesson of loyalty at all times, and obeisance and obedience to the King in all things?” The King resolved upon a plan.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
“Yes, Your Majesty, I remember.”
 Chopped down
 Clothier, weaver
 Impenetrable, so as not to allow light
 Purple or, literally, “the beautiful purple”; this is in fact the case with the world’s most famous blue diamond, the Hope Diamond, which, under special lighting, one can observe a most unusual and definitive purple radiance.
 Peaceful color
 Black, lit. – “the beautiful black"
Monday, November 2, 2009
The former, a white lie as “a ‘little’ lie rationalized by self-interest for convenience’s sake,” suffices for what the savage herd means by “white lie.” By that definition, three terms are key: “white,” “rationalized,” and “convenience.” “White” implies relative harmlessness, viz., that in certain circumstances “a ‘little’ lie rationalized by self-interest for convenience’s sake” produces less harm than the absolute truth, and so one tells a white lie as “the lesser of two evils,” the other "evil" being truth. For instance, your boss asks, “How are you coming along on that project?”, and you reply, “It’s coming along well,” when the truth is that you have procrastinated, or you have fallen behind schedule, or you haven’t even begun the task and you say to yourself, “I’ll get it done, but to tell my boss the truth would just create more problems so I will tell him/her a ‘white lie’ to avoid further exacerbation of the problem and thus mitigate potentially unpleasant effects of the absolute truth. If I told the truth, that could make things worse, so I will choose ‘the lesser of two evils’ and tell a 'white lie.'” Another example of “a ‘little’ lie rationalized by self-interest for convenience’s sake” might occur in a familial setting, when the wife asks the husband about how his job is going, or a parent asks a child how he is doing in that difficult class, and the husband replies thusly, “Everything is fine at work,” when in fact things are going downhill, or the child says, “I’m doing better in the class” when he got a “D” on yesterday’s task. Again, such “white lies” stem from self-interest and pain-avoidance, the lie being less painful than the truth, at least in the mind of the one who tells the white lie.
In such examples, one sees easily the meaning of a white lie “rationalized.” The liar contemplates the potentially adverse effects of a lie versus the truth and then makes a decision to lie because, in his judgment, the lie is less harmful than the truth. Such rationalization of the white lie derives from a compromised ethical construct, an intellectual paradigm of a warped conscience from whence springs errant volitional decisions and actions with moral import. In other words, based upon mere human judgment and without any real moral conviction, compulsion, or justification, the liar superimposes his own deficient value judgment upon a white lie versus the truth and rationalizes that to lie is “better” than to tell the truth. The liar imagines that the white lie harms neither the liar nor the person to whom s/he lies and is in fact a protection of the liar.
By the above examples and exposition, a lie is “white” if it protects a person from the undesirable effects of truth. We reiterate, such a white lie derives merely from a self-centered desire to avoid unpleasantness and inherently rests upon no absolute moral grounds to justify the white lie; the white lie is merely a rationalized self-defense mechanism against painful truth.
We should also note that, the more one tells white lies, the easier they roll off the tongue, and the more habitual they become, increasingly debilitating an already compromised conscience until white lies become an ever darkening hue, ever darkening the heart as well. Not everyone who tells a white lie is a pathological liar, but every pathological liar was first a white liar.
The other kind of white lie derives from moral necessity and ethical compulsion. For example, a family of four has been involved in a terrible automobile accident, the father, mother, and big sister having died in the crash while a six-year-old boy’s life hangs in the balance. He is conscious enough to ask the attending physician, “Where’s my Mommy? Where’s my Daddy? Where’s my sister?”, but in the physician’s judgment, the little boy’s critical condition is so fragile that, to tell him, “Your Mommy, Daddy, and big sister are dead,” might threaten the child to the extent that efforts to save his life might be diminished because of the psycho-somatic trauma of the truth. In such a case, the child’s survival constitutes a higher moral necessity and ethical compulsion to protect his life; moreover, the heroic physician has no egocentric interest in, or self-serving interest from the white lie but rather an altruistic motive for the child’s well-being. Both philosophy and theology defend such a white lie.
In philosophical terms, a philosopher who presupposes absolute morality would defend the noble physician who told a white lie to the suffering child. Soren Kierkegaard would designate that doctor as “a knight of infinite resignation,” viz., the physician found himself dangling upon the horns of a dilemma, caught between two conflicting but unequal moral principles: telling the truth, or telling a lie to protect the child psychologically in hopes of saving his life. When conflicting ethical principles converge upon a thinking individual whose mind is ethically tethered to absolute morality, circumstances demand his will to choose one or the other moral principle above the other. The wise moralist not only sees and feels the dilemma but also discerns and acts upon the correct moral principle, not that he chooses the lesser of two evils, but that he chooses the greater of two goods. Corrie Ten Boon was “a knight of infinite resignation” when she lied to the Gestapo to protect innocent Jews, as was Rahab the Harlot, who indeed lied to the Canaanites when they asked, “Have you seen those two spies?” At that moment, Rahab found herself in a moral dilemma: “Do I tell the truth, or do I protect Joshua and Caleb, good men, from evil men?” Rahab made the right decision, choosing the higher of two moral principles. Indeed, the doctor, Corrie Ten Boon, and Rahab told lies that were truly “white.”
So the next time you are tempted to tell a “white lie,” ask yourself, “Am I telling a ‘white lie rationalized by self-interest for convenience’s sake' merely to avoid the painful consequences of truth, or am I truly caught upon the horns of a moral dilemma? Do I see, not inevitable pain and unpleasantness for me because I tell the truth, but do I see two vivid but conflicting moral principles colliding, and do I have the discernment and wisdom to choose the higher and better moral principle and thus become ‘a knight of infinite resignation.'”
Often we find ourselves telling the first kind of white lie, which is not white at all. May God grant us grace, wisdom, discernment, and courage if we ever have to tell the second kind of white lie.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Marital love is like fine wine in a delicate cup. That cup is trust. That cup is also fragile, easily broken by the careless hand.
In Greek mythology, Psyche and Cupid drank the wine of love from the cup of trust, but Psyche violated that trust, broke the delicate goblet, and Cupid flew from her. His last words to her were, “Love cannot exist where there is no trust.” The crystal cup was broken, the wine spilled, and Psyche spent the rest of her mournful days wandering in sorrow for those precious things she had broken and wasted, the wine of love in the cup of trust.
Like a crystal glass, trust is not only delicate but also transparent. As a fragile thing, the cup of trust must be handled with great care. As a thing transparent, the cup of trust is swiftly shattered by secrecy, lies, betrayal, and half-truths, ruining the wine of love.
Paul commands husbands to “love your wives, even as Christ loved the church,” meaning that, like Christ Himself, a husband’s love for his wife must be like Christ’s own love, completely dependable, totally trustworthy. Solomon also says of the virtuous woman that “the heart of husband doth safely trust in her.”
We live in a world of shattered glass and spoiled wine. We walk on splintery shards and trod beneath our feet the once fine wine of love, spilled and spoiled by our own careless hands.
Take heed, dear husband and dear wife, the wine of love resides in the cup of trust.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Isaiah’s image is of autumn, perhaps the most beautiful time of year, and the most beautiful time of life. The wasps retreat, the serpents recede, the bear finds her den, the heat abates, the fruits and grain ripen, the harvest comes, and nature robes herself in elegant crimson and gold.
But Isaiah’s words bespeak an autumnal warning.
To the springtime child, autumn is inconceivable. The summery youth thinks the blazing sun will never set. But both the blossoming child and the passionate youth should know that autumn surely comes, and after that, the winter chill.
Those in autumn must know that, despite the beauty around them, the splendor of gold and crimson must inevitably fade to brown and grey, and that any clap of thunder, any lightning flash, any sudden wind, or even a gentle raindrop can snap the leaf and cast it downward, suddenly, and with no remedy.
Isaiah’s contemporary, Jeremiah, saw Israel in her autumn, and mourned for her,
“The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.”
How thankful we should be that grace is always in season.
" O God, save thy springtime child, thy summery youth, for autumn surely comes. Save thy autumn soul, and save even thine own whose brow is kissed by winter’s chilly frost."
Monday, September 21, 2009
Though I find your musings interesting, and want to address them, I think our disagreements are at such a foundational level that I doubt we can have productive discussion (about this) – but we can try. You really need to “take the red pill.”
To start, it’s admirable that you acknowledge that you are “ferociously patriotic”. At least this is on the table and we can acknowledge that you are not dealing from a position of rationality; rather, you have embraced those mythologies which have been ubiquitously foisted upon you your entire life by the principalities and powers that surround you.
You offer no defense of your idea that the modern expression of the United States of America is not a war-mongering, imperialist bully. To the contrary, you offer an ad hominem attack on those who believe otherwise (calling them “leftist nutjobs”, who make “ridiculous claims”).
I, on the other hand could offer myriad examples that would support the idea that it is (i.e., the United States of American is a war-mongering, imperialist bully). Let me just pose a few rhetorical questions.
You have been propagandized to believe that the United States of America is “good” – but how is the legalized mass slaughter of children (through abortion) “good”? How is the prohibitionist “drug-war” which has killed thousands, expended billions of stolen dollars to no appreciable effect, and imprisoned hundreds of thousands of people “good”? How was invasion of Vietnam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia “good”? How were the invasions of Grenada, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Iraq “good”? How were the bombings, the shootings, the tortures “good”?
I submit to you that all of these things were not good at all – rather – they were (and are) evil – heinously, hideously, evil.
My belief is that these evils were perpetrated by an evil principality viz. the United States government, which has so propagandized and deceived men and women – that they will gladly kill, maim and torture for this principality, and even reminisce about the killings with swelling patriotic pride. You should mark this down…America is evil, and America is damned. Please don’t believe the propaganda – and please don’t offer the pathetic defense that Gomorrah is not as bad a place as Sodom; just remember that both of them were burned to the ground.
Of course, our disagreement is even more fundamental. You believe that the natural tendency towards chaos must be restrained. Though this idea appears logical on the surface, a dive beneath must yield the question – “who will restrain it?” The near universal answer (and your answer per your second point applying entropy to humanity) which has been offered in the recorded history of ideas has been “government.” Government will restrain this evil chaos.
I hope you see what a sick joke this is. When men and women buy into this idea, they willingly pull the principalities’ propaganda right over their eyes. The truth is, that rather than restrain evil, or chaos – government manufactures it.
Though I am not yet final in my conclusion, my contemplations thus far have led me to the provisional conclusion that men’s willingness to embrace the principalities propaganda (i.e., the necessity of human governments) is directly proportional to the depth of their understanding of the Christian doctrine of “human depravity” or “fallen-ness.”
If you believe in the doctrine of human depravity, then it follows that human governments are merely power alliances of varied collections of depraved humanity. This being the case – democracies (even “republicanized” democracies like the United States of America) ensure a slide towards the worst case scenario. Depraved humans, especially those who have a great interest in having power over their fellows, compete for the votes of the propagandized masses. Those who are the best deceivers win. Then, because their term is limited (unlike the life-long monarch), they exploit their “officialdom” for gain as quickly as possible (before the next “official” comes to power).
Though this is disturbing, for Christians who believe the Holy Scriptures, it should not be surprising. When the ancient Hebrews decided that they needed a scheme of human government like the surrounding nations, Jehovah sent them a word through His prophet.
1 Samuel 8:6-22 “But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.”
The pragmatics for me become, in light of my beliefs, what do I do? I thank God, that because of where I currently live, I don’t really have to “do” anything about this except refuse to embrace evil, and refuse to call “evil” by the name “good.”
It seems that even this upsets a lot of folks – but then – they’ve drunk the Kool-Aid. For me, liberty with a little chaos beats government every time. But then, I believe that Jesus was a wise anarchist…
Yep, where is Hippie Fringe when I need him?
Monday, September 14, 2009
But then came Jesus.
De-boarding the ship, Jesus beheld the Gadarene demoniac, the wild man who ran to Him and worshiped Him. By His omnipotent command, the Lord Jesus Christ tamed a hellish heart, so that the tortured sinner, dwelling in tombs, mutilating himself and destroying his life, a man no other man could bind, was now under the sovereign sway of the Son of God “sitting, clothed, and in his right mind.”
“Sitting” denotes a radical change of posture, from raucous aimlessness to to placid composure, from pandemonium to Peace.
“Clothed” denotes the civilization of the passions, unashamed nakedness supplanted by sanctified conscience manifested by ethical demeanor and decorum.
“In his right mind” infers mental metamorphosis, the intellect and will now being respectively enlightened and liberated unto Truth and Righteousness.
Thanks be to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose power to save is such that even a wild man, bent on destroying himself, now sits at the Master’s feet, “sitting, clothed, and in his right mind.”
“Jesus, what a Friend for sinners! Jesus, Lover of my soul!
Friends may fail me, foes assail me, He, my Savior, makes me whole!”
Thursday, September 10, 2009
No more than the eye of a hurricane is disturbed by the violent winds around it, Peace is not disturbed even by the most adverse circumstances. In fact, adversitiy intensifies Peace; the bigger the hurricane, the wider its placid eye.
The "wicked are like the troubled sea." wind-torn and wave-tossed by this storm-cursed world. We hear their distressed sirens within the thunder, and see their torn masts atop every lightning-lit swell. But for the righteous it is not so even when we cry, "Lord, save us. We perish." Sometimes we "of little faith" forget that Peace sleeps in our bow even amidst the greatest tempest.
Peace, genuinely expreienced, derives not from our mere satisfaction with, or our approval of what or who is on the outside, but derives from Who is on the inside, Heaven's Dove, wings folded and nestled in the soul. Peace is His very nature, and the absence of His gentle coo in the soul is no indictment of His unfaithfulness, but of ours, whereby we can know that we have grieved, quenched, or resisted His gentle nature.
Peace is Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, enthroned in the soul through His only earthly Vicar, God the Holy Spirit. Through the violence of crucifixion, Jesus has made "peace through the blood of His cross," defeating every foe, destroying every fear, dispelling every doubt, so that "neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor anything in creation" can disturb "the peace of God that surpasses all comprehension."
On the eve of bloody Passover, the Prince of Peace said,
"Peace I leave with you. My peace give I unto you. Not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."Dear Friend, have you that Peace?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Outside of the Bible, the best depiction of the natural state of man that I have ever read comes from the French existentialist Albert Camus and his brilliant novel called The Fall.
Through the main character of Jean-Baptiste, Camus explores the effect of guilt on man. “The idea that comes most naturally to man, as if from his very nature,” he writes, “is the idea of his own innocence.” The implication being that every man is guilty, while only seeking to continually convey a state of innocence.
For a while, Jean-Baptiste “succeeds” in his life as most other men–being popular, learned, athletic and handsome. Until he fails to save a drowning girl one late night on the Seine, his life is “bursting with vanity” and “satisfied with nothing.“ Camus writes, “a single sentence will suffice for modern man: he fornicated and read the papers.”
After “the fall” on that late night, Jean-Baptiste is overcome by an irrepressible admission of guilt. In failing to do what he knows he should, his awakened conscience is so flooded with guilt that despair overtakes his entire existence.
The admitting of his guilt is an admission into the little-ease.
The little-ease was a unique torture device that was devised in the Middle Ages. In a cell “not high enough to stand up in, nor yet wide enough to lie down in,” explains Camus, “one had to take on an awkward manner and live on the diagonal; sleep was a collapse, and waking a squatting.” As one’s body would stiffen, “the condemned man learned that he was guilty and that innocence consists in stretching joyously.” Therefore, if the little-ease produced any certain effect on its occupant it was an inescapable and unbearable awareness of guilt.
Sadly, Camus’ Jean-Baptiste only confirms the sentence of guilt in the little-ease while offering no way of escape. Men “merely wish to be pitied and encouraged in the course we had chosen,” and any escape from the little-ease is for him only a temporal distraction from an eternal condition. At the end of the novel his character admits, “I haven’t changed my way of life; I continue to love myself and make use of others.” Only now, his motivation and life’s work is to quench the guilt within, to quiet his screaming conscience, to forget (if only momentarily) that he can neither fully rise nor lie without being aware of his trapped and desperate condition.
Imagine, for yourself, life in the little-ease.
Have you ever been to the little-ease?
If so, if you’ve ever really felt the crippling, damning effect of the little-ease and then by some strange miracle, some extraordinary occurrence, some unforeseen moment, the door to your little-ease were opened for you and blinding light shown in, and you were delivered, set free and allowed to “stretch joyously”…just imagine that.
Then why, freed soul, to the little-ease would you ever return?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Every spoken or written word is a potential Trinity, the synthesis of an invisible conception (Idea), an invisible inspiration (Breath), and an audible expression of the Idea when Breath strikes Flesh (the tongue and lips), and also a potential expression of unconscious Blasphemy or worshipful Adoration. Such is the theology of Incarnation, the Word Made Flesh, when the Invisible Father conceptualized the Word, and the Invisible Spirit impregnated Mary's Flesh to conceive the Word.
Every word proffers two choices to the Speaker, speak of Earth or speak of Heaven. To speak of Earth, the speaker must only speak of Persons or Events, the mainstay of colloquial vulgarity; to speak of Heaven, the speaker must speak of Ideas, ideas that explore the various spheres of Transcendence, the pinnacle sphere of which is Truth.
The next time you converse, analyze and evaluate the content of the conversation, and then ask yourself, "Is it earthly, focused upon persons and events, or is it, if not Heavenly, at least Heavenward, winging its way to Ideas or, better, ascending Beautifully to Truth? Tragically, you will see (and hear) that we consistently fashion waxen wings destined to melt in the heat and light of the Sun, predominantly and consistently summoning our feebler intellectual, emotional, and spiritual aptitudes to contemplate, and speak of, the mundane, wasting our brains and our breath upon the common, thus unconsciously blaspheming the potential holiness of every word. Seldom do we meet the conversationalist who attempts to fashion every word a golden apple in a silver vase, making every word an angel's wing. If we do encounter such an one, we are probably at a loss for words, and that would, ironically, be most beneficial to ourselves and others. Still Silence is better than a Fast Fall.
The Word said this. "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment; for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
How, and of what, did He speak?