The nice guy is often called the "salt of the earth". There is no doubt that he (or she) plays a major role in the sustaining of a stable and ordered society. His is the perfect citizen for a political regime that wants to be peaceful, law-abiding, and productive. He doesn't stir up trouble. He meets social expectations for courtesy as well as obligations for any kinds of public service and general helpfulness. In many ways, I am the nice guy.
However, as a follower of Jesus and his teachings, I'm struck by the potential that the nice guy can also be an antagonist to Jesus and His Father in Heaven. The nice guy attitude of "Don't bother yourself about me, I'll take care of things for myself" can just as easily be expressed to the God of Heaven as it is to his family, friends, or countrymen. While it might make for good relations with other people when the nice guy is self reliant, maintaining a well-ordered, even-keeled, and moderate lifestyle—such self-reliance is not going to get the nice guy very far before his Creator.
The reality of this might be even more shocking to us than the fact that a person who is utterly broken and in despair may not open himself to the grace of God. The pride of the broken person can be justified in our minds as a kind of karma—"you made a mess of your life, you lost any chance you have to know your Maker". But the nice guy does not make a mess of his life. How can God punish the nice guy? Even rude, self-centered, mean people have a tinge of guilt when they consider giving the nice guy a hard time.
Of course, it is the pride of the nice guy that gets in the way of his relationship with his Maker. What the nice guy does not realize is that the God of Heaven is not interested primarily in his nice lifestyle and habits. He wants the heart of the nice guy. Only when the nice guy admits that his niceness does not justify him before a Holy God, can he come humbly before the throne of God's grace and be God-reliant.
The nice guy can have a veneer of righteous niceness just as the Pharisee has a veneer of Jewish legalism that can be his pride and joy—his idol. No one, not even the nice guy, can come before God's throne of grace while also embracing an idol—even if that idol is niceness. All my niceness will never win me God's favor or his love. It can only be received freely when I admit my niceness will never justify me. A painful truth to swallow for the nice guy...
Friday, September 16, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Passion vs. Love
All too often my day is filled with a flow of thoughts and desires that can seem random and out of control—and sometimes are. It seems to me that we ought to ask ourselves, daily, why we do what we do. Our life should not be a chaotic experience of doing what is instinctual. We are, after all, rational creatures, enabled by God’s design to chose “right”. But what is “right” for me as a follower of Jesus? When I look at the example of Jesus in the New Testament, what do I see? I see a man that is concerned with the heart of others.
Jesus offers his thoughts on this when having a discussion about healthy hygiene practices. Concerns had been expressed to Jesus about the failure of his disciples to wash their hands before eating: “Why do your disciples disobey the tradition of the elders? For they don’t wash their hands when they eat” (Matthew 15:2 NET). Jesus makes it clear that a truly healthy lifestyle is a concern of the heart and not physical health. Not that physical health is not a good thing. Taking care of our physical body is of high priority. But not of the highest priority.
The things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a person. For out of the heart come evil ideas, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Matthew 15:18–19 NET
Far more important is a concern for the heart—obviously not meaning the physical one. And notice that this list of defilements are primarily, if not exclusively, concerned with how other people are viewed and treated.
This list of behaviors when compared to the description of love in 1 Corinthians 13 (protecting, hoping, trusting, persevering) demonstrate the distinction between passion and love. In times past, the word passion was a negative term. As already mentioned this word has been brought into use in Christian circles as a kind of synonym for love. We ought to be careful in doing this and, perhaps, should avoid it.
The distinction that was made between passion and love in previous times was like the difference between a brush fire and a smithy or blacksmith forge.
I had the chance to see the difference between a forge and a brush fire up close and personal growing up in the American southwest. Every summer there were brush fires started by lightning in the rugged terrain around our ranch. You could see the smoke from miles way. When the wind came up, these fires were utterly impossible to contain. There could be a mile or more of a fire line moving at a rapid pace enveloping the brush and dry grass—up and down the rocky slopes of the dessert landscape. Wherever the wind would blow, that fire would consume.
On the ranch, I also had the chance to learn how to work in a smithy. The fire was carefully monitored and stoked for optimal heating of the metal. In the blacksmith furnace, the heat was far hotter than what occurred in a brush fire. Wildfires tend to burn up to around 1500°F whereas coal forges can reach 3000°F. But, the forge fire has to be tended with a constant supply of oxygen and fuel to keep a steady temperature. It has to be contained in a pan that can withstand the temperatures. When you have a good fire going, you can achieve amazing things. The hardest of steels and iron metals can be hammered and shaped according to your will. The forge has been responsible for a great many advances in human history—both for the sake of warfare and destruction, but even more so for advances in peaceful endeavors like agriculture and construction.
The difference between love in the human heart and a passion is like the difference between a forge fire and a wild fire. Our loves are guided and directed toward chosen ends. It is a thinking desire or a desiring intellect, as Aristotle put it. Our passion is like a wild fire. It is driven along wherever the wind takes it. Our postmodern societies are very taken with this conception of “love”, which is often merely passion. Whatever feels good, do it. Advertisers and marketing expertise often make their living on it. Sexuality is expressed and received whenever we have an urge. We are consumed by our passions and consume whatever we desire. This anarchy of the heart leads to massive suffering and destruction in many cases. Our unleashed passions destroy us: pleasure passions—obesity, debt, wasteful consumption ; sexual passions—broken promises and relationships; ambition passions—anger, slander, unethical practices.
The heart can be thought of as that deep part of the soul that determines how we make choices—it can determine our loves or unleash passions. It is the part of the soul that directs a person. What do I want? What desires should I pursue? The confusing thing about my experience as a human being is that I typically desire several things, or even many things, at one time. But, Jesus seems to be concerned with what a person wants to the greatest degree and having that greatest commitment determines how I order my life. It determines the relative importance and priority of all the other commitments. Therefore, if you want to determine what should be the proper character of a Christian’s love, you have to consider the highest objective of his or her love. You have to consider the nature of God and his love. The apprentice’s character and practices should be modeled after the master. It is His image that we were designed to bear. The character of our love ought to be constantly informed by and conformed to the love of God.
Jesus offers his thoughts on this when having a discussion about healthy hygiene practices. Concerns had been expressed to Jesus about the failure of his disciples to wash their hands before eating: “Why do your disciples disobey the tradition of the elders? For they don’t wash their hands when they eat” (Matthew 15:2 NET). Jesus makes it clear that a truly healthy lifestyle is a concern of the heart and not physical health. Not that physical health is not a good thing. Taking care of our physical body is of high priority. But not of the highest priority.
The things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a person. For out of the heart come evil ideas, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Matthew 15:18–19 NET
Far more important is a concern for the heart—obviously not meaning the physical one. And notice that this list of defilements are primarily, if not exclusively, concerned with how other people are viewed and treated.
This list of behaviors when compared to the description of love in 1 Corinthians 13 (protecting, hoping, trusting, persevering) demonstrate the distinction between passion and love. In times past, the word passion was a negative term. As already mentioned this word has been brought into use in Christian circles as a kind of synonym for love. We ought to be careful in doing this and, perhaps, should avoid it.
The distinction that was made between passion and love in previous times was like the difference between a brush fire and a smithy or blacksmith forge.
I had the chance to see the difference between a forge and a brush fire up close and personal growing up in the American southwest. Every summer there were brush fires started by lightning in the rugged terrain around our ranch. You could see the smoke from miles way. When the wind came up, these fires were utterly impossible to contain. There could be a mile or more of a fire line moving at a rapid pace enveloping the brush and dry grass—up and down the rocky slopes of the dessert landscape. Wherever the wind would blow, that fire would consume.
On the ranch, I also had the chance to learn how to work in a smithy. The fire was carefully monitored and stoked for optimal heating of the metal. In the blacksmith furnace, the heat was far hotter than what occurred in a brush fire. Wildfires tend to burn up to around 1500°F whereas coal forges can reach 3000°F. But, the forge fire has to be tended with a constant supply of oxygen and fuel to keep a steady temperature. It has to be contained in a pan that can withstand the temperatures. When you have a good fire going, you can achieve amazing things. The hardest of steels and iron metals can be hammered and shaped according to your will. The forge has been responsible for a great many advances in human history—both for the sake of warfare and destruction, but even more so for advances in peaceful endeavors like agriculture and construction.
The difference between love in the human heart and a passion is like the difference between a forge fire and a wild fire. Our loves are guided and directed toward chosen ends. It is a thinking desire or a desiring intellect, as Aristotle put it. Our passion is like a wild fire. It is driven along wherever the wind takes it. Our postmodern societies are very taken with this conception of “love”, which is often merely passion. Whatever feels good, do it. Advertisers and marketing expertise often make their living on it. Sexuality is expressed and received whenever we have an urge. We are consumed by our passions and consume whatever we desire. This anarchy of the heart leads to massive suffering and destruction in many cases. Our unleashed passions destroy us: pleasure passions—obesity, debt, wasteful consumption ; sexual passions—broken promises and relationships; ambition passions—anger, slander, unethical practices.
The heart can be thought of as that deep part of the soul that determines how we make choices—it can determine our loves or unleash passions. It is the part of the soul that directs a person. What do I want? What desires should I pursue? The confusing thing about my experience as a human being is that I typically desire several things, or even many things, at one time. But, Jesus seems to be concerned with what a person wants to the greatest degree and having that greatest commitment determines how I order my life. It determines the relative importance and priority of all the other commitments. Therefore, if you want to determine what should be the proper character of a Christian’s love, you have to consider the highest objective of his or her love. You have to consider the nature of God and his love. The apprentice’s character and practices should be modeled after the master. It is His image that we were designed to bear. The character of our love ought to be constantly informed by and conformed to the love of God.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Man as a political person
A human being is a desiring being. But contrary to Hobbes’ assessment his desires are not always rooted in a kind of animal instinct. His higher desires are not always physiological in nature. He asks questions of meaning and significance. “Who am I?” “Why am I here?” “Did someone or something make me and everything around me?” “If so, why?” “How can I know?” “What should I do now?” He identifies goals and objectives and pursues them—some objectives and goals that don’t even contribute to his physical survival. He climbs mountains just to see if he can or to see what things look like from another perspective. He considers possibilities, discerns what is good for himself, and pursues it.
However, he is not an isolated or autonomous desiring being. He is a social being. His social nature is not limited to utility. He is not merely social because he needs his mother’s milk or an extra hand when constructing the walls of his new home or the cooperation of others to earn his daily bread. Yes, he is social as a means to self-preservation. However, he is also social as an end in itself. He plays games with others—essentially meaningless activities of social interaction. He shares stories. He feels and expresses affection.
He is familial. He identifies with—or at least is identified with—other family members. He has one biological father and one biological mother. He has two biological grandfathers and two biological grandmothers. He is, in the majority of cases, cared for until adulthood by family members. He knows himself and develops a sense of identity in the context of family relationships—or sometimes in opposition to them. “I am like my father in this and like my mother in this.” “I’m nothing like my father and mother.” “I wish I had known my mother.” “My brother and I never got along.” “My father left us.” “My father taught me to ride a bike.”
He is communicative. He learns and uses language to express his thoughts, to articulate his desires, to pursue his goals, to be known and to know others. He receives language from others and discerns its meaning. He writes, types, reads, listens, and speaks.
He is an individual. He does not live under the constant compulsion of others. It is not possible for others to determine his thoughts, his beliefs, his actions—though they may significantly influence him. His thoughts are only known to him, unless he chooses to share them with others. He holds convictions. He makes his own conclusions and choices. His body is his own—not shared with others. His lungs bring oxygen only to his muscles. He works with his body. He creates, builds, orders, destroys, rebuilds.
Though an individual, he is incomplete. He is insufficient. He receives extensive nurturing as an infant. He is given a name, taught a language, trained in useful skills, given a role. He needs to belong. He needs meaning. He needs physical sustenance. He needs to matter—to someone, for some purpose.
He is political. He makes judgments. He is judged by others. He rules. He is ruled. He gives orders and obeys them. Rules and regulations—written or unwritten—define his liberty. Rules are imposed upon him by his parents, teachers, coaches, clergy, bosses, legislators. He imposes rules upon others—children, students, congregation, subordinates, citizens.
Human life is complex. One must balance individual desires and needs with family, social, and political obligations and expectations. One must engage in ordering and prioritizing various goals and objectives—whether they be personal, family, or other group goals and objectives. One must work, but also rest. One must talk, but also listen. One must contemplate, but also act—and react.
Any political theory must take into account the complex nature of a human being. Any attempts at political theory which absolutizes any aspect of a human being will inevitably miss the mark. If man is viewed with too strong an emphasis on his economic needs, the resulting political order may neglect his spiritual, emotional, or social desires and needs. If man is viewed as absolutely competitive, his cooperate inclinations will be neglected. The reality of this is evident in the recent acknowledgements that a just society can be achieved neither by resorting to a atomistic libertarianism nor by resorting to a totalitarian socialism. In Europe this is fleshed out in the compromises that are constantly being sought between the modern liberals and the social democrats. The just society cannot be achieved by imposing strict, old-fashioned moral standards upon millions of people nor by eliminating all moral standards. Some US conservatives’ primary goal is forcing a nation of millions to conform to their moral sensibilities, while some US liberals primary goal is to eliminate any moral restrictions on private behavior. Aristotle defined political life as a condition in which one rules and is ruled in turn. If our modern democratic experiments are to achieve anything close to that vision of political life, a massive reversal of power must be sought and achieved—a reversal of the centralization of power to the devolution of power. And, it must not be a reform project that is haphazard. Absolutizing the principle of devolving power is not the answer. Just because a great deal of power and authority needs to be moved to the local and state/regional level, does not mean all power ought to be. Certain powers—even strong powers—belong at the federal or national level. However, a politically healthy citizenry cannot now be cultivated without substantial devolution of powers.
However, he is not an isolated or autonomous desiring being. He is a social being. His social nature is not limited to utility. He is not merely social because he needs his mother’s milk or an extra hand when constructing the walls of his new home or the cooperation of others to earn his daily bread. Yes, he is social as a means to self-preservation. However, he is also social as an end in itself. He plays games with others—essentially meaningless activities of social interaction. He shares stories. He feels and expresses affection.
He is familial. He identifies with—or at least is identified with—other family members. He has one biological father and one biological mother. He has two biological grandfathers and two biological grandmothers. He is, in the majority of cases, cared for until adulthood by family members. He knows himself and develops a sense of identity in the context of family relationships—or sometimes in opposition to them. “I am like my father in this and like my mother in this.” “I’m nothing like my father and mother.” “I wish I had known my mother.” “My brother and I never got along.” “My father left us.” “My father taught me to ride a bike.”
He is communicative. He learns and uses language to express his thoughts, to articulate his desires, to pursue his goals, to be known and to know others. He receives language from others and discerns its meaning. He writes, types, reads, listens, and speaks.
He is an individual. He does not live under the constant compulsion of others. It is not possible for others to determine his thoughts, his beliefs, his actions—though they may significantly influence him. His thoughts are only known to him, unless he chooses to share them with others. He holds convictions. He makes his own conclusions and choices. His body is his own—not shared with others. His lungs bring oxygen only to his muscles. He works with his body. He creates, builds, orders, destroys, rebuilds.
Though an individual, he is incomplete. He is insufficient. He receives extensive nurturing as an infant. He is given a name, taught a language, trained in useful skills, given a role. He needs to belong. He needs meaning. He needs physical sustenance. He needs to matter—to someone, for some purpose.
He is political. He makes judgments. He is judged by others. He rules. He is ruled. He gives orders and obeys them. Rules and regulations—written or unwritten—define his liberty. Rules are imposed upon him by his parents, teachers, coaches, clergy, bosses, legislators. He imposes rules upon others—children, students, congregation, subordinates, citizens.
Human life is complex. One must balance individual desires and needs with family, social, and political obligations and expectations. One must engage in ordering and prioritizing various goals and objectives—whether they be personal, family, or other group goals and objectives. One must work, but also rest. One must talk, but also listen. One must contemplate, but also act—and react.
Any political theory must take into account the complex nature of a human being. Any attempts at political theory which absolutizes any aspect of a human being will inevitably miss the mark. If man is viewed with too strong an emphasis on his economic needs, the resulting political order may neglect his spiritual, emotional, or social desires and needs. If man is viewed as absolutely competitive, his cooperate inclinations will be neglected. The reality of this is evident in the recent acknowledgements that a just society can be achieved neither by resorting to a atomistic libertarianism nor by resorting to a totalitarian socialism. In Europe this is fleshed out in the compromises that are constantly being sought between the modern liberals and the social democrats. The just society cannot be achieved by imposing strict, old-fashioned moral standards upon millions of people nor by eliminating all moral standards. Some US conservatives’ primary goal is forcing a nation of millions to conform to their moral sensibilities, while some US liberals primary goal is to eliminate any moral restrictions on private behavior. Aristotle defined political life as a condition in which one rules and is ruled in turn. If our modern democratic experiments are to achieve anything close to that vision of political life, a massive reversal of power must be sought and achieved—a reversal of the centralization of power to the devolution of power. And, it must not be a reform project that is haphazard. Absolutizing the principle of devolving power is not the answer. Just because a great deal of power and authority needs to be moved to the local and state/regional level, does not mean all power ought to be. Certain powers—even strong powers—belong at the federal or national level. However, a politically healthy citizenry cannot now be cultivated without substantial devolution of powers.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Life as Ascetics vs. Aesthetics
I used to think of my life as a Christian more in terms of ascetics—self discipline and restraint. Now I tend to see it in terms of aesthetics—an association with beauty and the creative arts. The former is what we can primarily get caught up with. But, the Christian life, it seems to me is all about a certain kind of aesthetic. It is a preoccupation with the beauty of God and the beauty or art of loving others. It's a life that participates in God's creative work of redemption, not primarily self-discipline and restraint for its own sake. An artist is disciplined in order to create art. World class musicians can spend hours and hours a day doing basic exercises on their instruments in order to keep up their skill. But these musicians do not have self-discipline for its own sake. They have it in order that they might play—create beautiful music. We believers must have self-discipline and restraint, but it is all for the sake of making music with our lives. We are only doing what we were created to do. The Father breathed His life into us and that life is centered in relationship.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Thoughts on American Politics
A friend recently asked me my general thoughts on the current situation in American politics. Here is my response—at least off-the-cuff:
There are multiple problems going on as I see it, but some very crucial ones are, I would say driving many of the problems. There is the issue of redundancy in our federal system. Our constitutional principles have been violated in many ways, but one of them is that multiple levels of government (local, state, and federal) are involved in the same issues. A great example is the case of education. Not only is it wasteful when all levels of government get involved, it confuses people with respect to accountability/responsibility. People don't know who to blame, and politicians/agencies can blame others when things go wrong. Another major violation is the significant consolidation of power in D.C. (A trend that goes at least as far back as the Civil War.) The most abused and ignored amendment in our US constitution is the 10th. Only the powers explicitly given in the constitution are supposed to belong to the federal govt, but many, many powers have consolidated in the federal govt beyond what is explicitly given. A good example of this issue is that back in the early 20th century, in order for Congress to prohibit alcohol, they knew they had to pass a constitutional amendment because they did not have the power to do so. Now, Congress passes bills on all sorts of issues regulating our lives which it doesn't have the constitutional mandate to do. So, they argue that the mandate is "implied" based on their interpretations of the constitution...
My greatest fear in all this is the impact this all has on our political culture. We are less and less a self-governing society. I came up against this recently when arguing with a liberal about the American heritage of granting local communities the jurisdiction of education and the need to keep states and federal agencies out of the local communities management of their own schools. Her response was something like, "If you do that, schools in the south will be teaching evolution and engaging in prejudice against blacks." My response was basically, "so what you are telling me is that the American people are not competent for self-government?" If families can't figure out how to manage or chose representatives to manage their local schools, then we are in truly bad shape as a self-governing people.
On the other hand, the conservatives are not by any stretch right on all counts as far as I'm concerned. They continue to talk about getting budget spending under control as if they would be fiscally responsible, but every chance they've gotten in the last 50 years they have squandered. They get their tax cuts passed first and then have their spending cuts stall. The result is less govt revenue and no less spending. In addition, they have taken the modus operandi of the liberals when it comes to accomplishing their policies—using the federal govt to do so. Instead of doing any significant actions to devolve power from the federal government to state or local governments (or to eliminate some govt activities altogether to leave to voluntary institutions in civil society) the conservatives have begun trying to use the courts, the presidential administration, the Congress to get their policies through. This exacerbates the problems of eroding the political culture. The conservatives on foreign policy and defense is another issue, but don't get me started on that one. I'm very supported of a very well equipped and funded military (with the highest degree of technological investment and training), but our military was never intended to be a force sent around the world. A large standing army was never to be in the United States. We were supposed to be a people designed to defend our land and liberties through well trained, citizen militias that were locally managed. We have the Civil War to thank for losing our tradition of state militia-oriented military. We have the Cold War to thank for conservatives losing sight of the traditional conservative viewpoint of a defensive military. Maybe it was necessary to some extent during the Cold War, but conservatives who support "nation building" enterprises should be ashamed of themselves. American military personnel should be defending American land and liberties—and that was never intended to be the land they might own abroad or the liberties they wish they had when traveling abroad. When you do either of those things, you do so at your own risk.
Don't get me wrong, there are still some very strong and good aspects of our political culture. There are people who know how things are being managed in their local and state governments. They know how to vote and how to get involved in the issues. But, these people are few and far between. And, as power is consolidated at the federal level, the chance of people "getting involved" at the local level in solving our social problems is diminished. Most Americans don't know who their city or town council members are—or even that their town or city is run by a council, for example. If we don't find ways to get people more motivated to and more empowered to be political active, we will lose even the vestiges of self-government we currently have. But, for conservatives, that means that they need to be willing to let the more liberal states and communities make their societies more liberal—and live with those consequences.
These core problems are unlikely to be addressed because they are deeply embedded in our society now and reversing things is unlikely. The only way now is to try to seek "reforms" that are perceived as "new solutions" but actually build on older principles. The prospects seem very bleak for significant reforms of this type. We are probably stuck with centralized government that is loosely kept in check by national public opinion. This will be decreasingly made up of self-governing communities.
But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some significant reforms are possible.
There are multiple problems going on as I see it, but some very crucial ones are, I would say driving many of the problems. There is the issue of redundancy in our federal system. Our constitutional principles have been violated in many ways, but one of them is that multiple levels of government (local, state, and federal) are involved in the same issues. A great example is the case of education. Not only is it wasteful when all levels of government get involved, it confuses people with respect to accountability/responsibility. People don't know who to blame, and politicians/agencies can blame others when things go wrong. Another major violation is the significant consolidation of power in D.C. (A trend that goes at least as far back as the Civil War.) The most abused and ignored amendment in our US constitution is the 10th. Only the powers explicitly given in the constitution are supposed to belong to the federal govt, but many, many powers have consolidated in the federal govt beyond what is explicitly given. A good example of this issue is that back in the early 20th century, in order for Congress to prohibit alcohol, they knew they had to pass a constitutional amendment because they did not have the power to do so. Now, Congress passes bills on all sorts of issues regulating our lives which it doesn't have the constitutional mandate to do. So, they argue that the mandate is "implied" based on their interpretations of the constitution...
My greatest fear in all this is the impact this all has on our political culture. We are less and less a self-governing society. I came up against this recently when arguing with a liberal about the American heritage of granting local communities the jurisdiction of education and the need to keep states and federal agencies out of the local communities management of their own schools. Her response was something like, "If you do that, schools in the south will be teaching evolution and engaging in prejudice against blacks." My response was basically, "so what you are telling me is that the American people are not competent for self-government?" If families can't figure out how to manage or chose representatives to manage their local schools, then we are in truly bad shape as a self-governing people.
On the other hand, the conservatives are not by any stretch right on all counts as far as I'm concerned. They continue to talk about getting budget spending under control as if they would be fiscally responsible, but every chance they've gotten in the last 50 years they have squandered. They get their tax cuts passed first and then have their spending cuts stall. The result is less govt revenue and no less spending. In addition, they have taken the modus operandi of the liberals when it comes to accomplishing their policies—using the federal govt to do so. Instead of doing any significant actions to devolve power from the federal government to state or local governments (or to eliminate some govt activities altogether to leave to voluntary institutions in civil society) the conservatives have begun trying to use the courts, the presidential administration, the Congress to get their policies through. This exacerbates the problems of eroding the political culture. The conservatives on foreign policy and defense is another issue, but don't get me started on that one. I'm very supported of a very well equipped and funded military (with the highest degree of technological investment and training), but our military was never intended to be a force sent around the world. A large standing army was never to be in the United States. We were supposed to be a people designed to defend our land and liberties through well trained, citizen militias that were locally managed. We have the Civil War to thank for losing our tradition of state militia-oriented military. We have the Cold War to thank for conservatives losing sight of the traditional conservative viewpoint of a defensive military. Maybe it was necessary to some extent during the Cold War, but conservatives who support "nation building" enterprises should be ashamed of themselves. American military personnel should be defending American land and liberties—and that was never intended to be the land they might own abroad or the liberties they wish they had when traveling abroad. When you do either of those things, you do so at your own risk.
Don't get me wrong, there are still some very strong and good aspects of our political culture. There are people who know how things are being managed in their local and state governments. They know how to vote and how to get involved in the issues. But, these people are few and far between. And, as power is consolidated at the federal level, the chance of people "getting involved" at the local level in solving our social problems is diminished. Most Americans don't know who their city or town council members are—or even that their town or city is run by a council, for example. If we don't find ways to get people more motivated to and more empowered to be political active, we will lose even the vestiges of self-government we currently have. But, for conservatives, that means that they need to be willing to let the more liberal states and communities make their societies more liberal—and live with those consequences.
These core problems are unlikely to be addressed because they are deeply embedded in our society now and reversing things is unlikely. The only way now is to try to seek "reforms" that are perceived as "new solutions" but actually build on older principles. The prospects seem very bleak for significant reforms of this type. We are probably stuck with centralized government that is loosely kept in check by national public opinion. This will be decreasingly made up of self-governing communities.
But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some significant reforms are possible.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Fulfillment
I am just an ordinary man who is trying to get the most out of life—engaging in that quest. In my wandering quest, I came across fulfillment. I met it—or I should say Him. But, the trouble is, getting Fulfillment inside me is a very long, slow process. No worries, though, because He who is fulfillment is both patient and diligent. He knows that there is much in the human heart that is incompatible with True Fulfillment. True Fulfillment will not abide divided loyalties. He was not willing to be put on the shelf of fulfillment like a trophy alongside those other fulfilling parts of my life—my education, my job, my hobbies, my past achievements, even my perceived successes in marriage, parenting or other relationships. Fulfillment does not remove those things from my life, but neither allows them to remain on a pedestal. Though patient, He will never cease reordering and, sometimes, cleansing away that which undermines a full experience of Himself.
The first thing Fulfillment did was to lead me through a process of debt fulfillment . Fulfillment began, and continues, with forgiveness. But, this has been no open and shut case. Theologically, I can grasp what my Bible tells me—that Jesus pays for and forgives all my sins the moment I commit to trust in Him. However, the debt fulfillment has continuously been understood from new angles and perspectives throughout my life. Fulfillment is tenacious—He wants to give me more and more and more of Him. He is not satisfied with leaving me ignorant of, nor infected by, self-destructive, self-serving attitudes and beliefs. Fulfillment knows that there is always more fulfillment for me through His engaging in a relentless, patient, and careful process of exposure—exposing the intricacies of my soul to me.
The exposure has had a focused purpose—a lifetime course in learning that we acquire more life the more of it we give away. It’s no surprise that Fulfillment declared that you cannot serve Love and Money. They are indeed opposites. One is acquired by giving. The other is lost by giving—and so we hoard it. We hoard not only money, but we hoard any number of things. Our hearts engage in an endless campaign to replace Fulfillment with any number of artificial fulfillments. The more we can gather up, the better. We need any number of them, because inevitably, life gets tough in one way or another. In response to my failure to find fulfillment in a relationship, I crave for and seek after recognition in my work. In my failure at work, I craze an adrenalin high from my mountain biking. And so the cycle continues…
Fulfillment knows that these many roads, which have many names, lead to one heartache (and heart break) after another. And yet, the path that Fulfillment leads us on seems no better, if we self-confident followers of Jesus are honest with ourselves. The path of Fulfillment is a path of suffering, there is no doubt about it—the most painful of which is in our own souls. This is largely due to the fact that Fulfillment reveals to us the extent to which our modus operandi, which offered us so much promise—and so many promises, leads to disillusionment. He will not let us get comfortable with or deceived by the idea of a commodious life in our modern liberal democracies, with safety net welfare, countless educational and job opportunities, pension and health care plans. He draws the eyes of my heart into the reality of my soul. Fulfillment will not let us be deceived by the veneer of material comforts and vocational achievements—certainly not bad things as far as they go. But, they do not go far enough. They do not descend into the soul of a man and offer deep, lasting fulfillment.
They say that good leadership must begin by an accurate definition of reality. And so it is true with the quest for fulfillment. It begins with perceiving the realty of the human soul. But in the soul of the man there is always turmoil, confusion, anger, insecurity—all sorts of disorder. It is into this hidden place that Fulfillment must go. And when He begins to reveal to us the reality of the situation in that dark, tumultuous place, a surgeon’s care is needed. He often uses the benefit of time and many experiences, in order to not overwhelm. Usually the damage is so severe, any number of procedures are needed to repair and restore health. (I should speak for myself, but maybe you can relate.) The physician called Fulfillment can and does operate countless times, with many instruments, in order to repair our sickened souls.
Fulfillment’s constant purpose is to renew, restore, regenerate the human soul. To floodlight the caverns of the human soul with Fulfillment’s pure light—this would be utterly terrifying. So, He works his way through those dark passageways educating us on the deceptions that reside in our own soul—and not just the deceptions, but also the ugly self-aggrandizements. I will make something of myself. Fulfillment shows us the varied loves resident in the human soul that love wrongly. The loves that reject Fulfillment, replacing him through any number of artifices. I’ll prove everyone wrong about me. Any idol that can be constructed is but an image of the idol maker—self idolatry. I have right to be proud of the accomplishments of my company. How can the creator find fulfillment or completion in that which he has made? Fulfillment comes from within, not from that which is created without.
The loves of our soul can go wrong not only with what we make for of of ourselves, but also with what is given us—the gifts of Fulfillment rather than Fulfillment Himself. She satisfies all of my deepest needs. He makes us see what we don’t want to admit because he knows that disordered love not only causes disorder in the lives of others (I can never meet his deepest needs; I can’t measure up) but deep disappointment and pain in our own as well (I thought she would always be there for me).
He exposes, but then empowers. Truth is power, as philosophers have said. The work of Fulfillment is evidence of this. To know the truth about our own souls is an awesome thing. His insights cut us to the core. Truth does a work in our soul. He reveals, reorders, and reorients. He empowers the soul to have its flow reversed, from a conduit of grasping to a conduit of giving. He will make something through me. We, the followers and friends-in-the-making of Fulfillment, find that after we find Him, he leads us on this paradoxical path of pain and joy. There is still so much disorder in our souls, and yet Fulfillment tutors us in a life of giving to the extent that we get what He has to offer and give it away, sometimes freely—knowing that His supply of Fulfillment is endless, and sometimes half-halfheartedly—affected by the residual grasping in our souls.
I now know with certainty that the rest of my life will involve this tension. I know it because I know enough of my heart to know that a liar and thief still resides in me. An adulterer too. Even a murderer. The propensity to grasp rather than give keeps its hold in my heart. I live in the tension between being a sinner while being called to live according to God’s design for me, which is a calling to love. I am a self-centered individual more times than not, though I am attempting to learn to be a conduit of giving. The point is not for you to know more about my spiritual journey, however, but for you to be encouraged in your own navigation of that tension—the journey of a grasper learning to give as a follower of Jesus.
The first thing Fulfillment did was to lead me through a process of debt fulfillment . Fulfillment began, and continues, with forgiveness. But, this has been no open and shut case. Theologically, I can grasp what my Bible tells me—that Jesus pays for and forgives all my sins the moment I commit to trust in Him. However, the debt fulfillment has continuously been understood from new angles and perspectives throughout my life. Fulfillment is tenacious—He wants to give me more and more and more of Him. He is not satisfied with leaving me ignorant of, nor infected by, self-destructive, self-serving attitudes and beliefs. Fulfillment knows that there is always more fulfillment for me through His engaging in a relentless, patient, and careful process of exposure—exposing the intricacies of my soul to me.
The exposure has had a focused purpose—a lifetime course in learning that we acquire more life the more of it we give away. It’s no surprise that Fulfillment declared that you cannot serve Love and Money. They are indeed opposites. One is acquired by giving. The other is lost by giving—and so we hoard it. We hoard not only money, but we hoard any number of things. Our hearts engage in an endless campaign to replace Fulfillment with any number of artificial fulfillments. The more we can gather up, the better. We need any number of them, because inevitably, life gets tough in one way or another. In response to my failure to find fulfillment in a relationship, I crave for and seek after recognition in my work. In my failure at work, I craze an adrenalin high from my mountain biking. And so the cycle continues…
Fulfillment knows that these many roads, which have many names, lead to one heartache (and heart break) after another. And yet, the path that Fulfillment leads us on seems no better, if we self-confident followers of Jesus are honest with ourselves. The path of Fulfillment is a path of suffering, there is no doubt about it—the most painful of which is in our own souls. This is largely due to the fact that Fulfillment reveals to us the extent to which our modus operandi, which offered us so much promise—and so many promises, leads to disillusionment. He will not let us get comfortable with or deceived by the idea of a commodious life in our modern liberal democracies, with safety net welfare, countless educational and job opportunities, pension and health care plans. He draws the eyes of my heart into the reality of my soul. Fulfillment will not let us be deceived by the veneer of material comforts and vocational achievements—certainly not bad things as far as they go. But, they do not go far enough. They do not descend into the soul of a man and offer deep, lasting fulfillment.
They say that good leadership must begin by an accurate definition of reality. And so it is true with the quest for fulfillment. It begins with perceiving the realty of the human soul. But in the soul of the man there is always turmoil, confusion, anger, insecurity—all sorts of disorder. It is into this hidden place that Fulfillment must go. And when He begins to reveal to us the reality of the situation in that dark, tumultuous place, a surgeon’s care is needed. He often uses the benefit of time and many experiences, in order to not overwhelm. Usually the damage is so severe, any number of procedures are needed to repair and restore health. (I should speak for myself, but maybe you can relate.) The physician called Fulfillment can and does operate countless times, with many instruments, in order to repair our sickened souls.
Fulfillment’s constant purpose is to renew, restore, regenerate the human soul. To floodlight the caverns of the human soul with Fulfillment’s pure light—this would be utterly terrifying. So, He works his way through those dark passageways educating us on the deceptions that reside in our own soul—and not just the deceptions, but also the ugly self-aggrandizements. I will make something of myself. Fulfillment shows us the varied loves resident in the human soul that love wrongly. The loves that reject Fulfillment, replacing him through any number of artifices. I’ll prove everyone wrong about me. Any idol that can be constructed is but an image of the idol maker—self idolatry. I have right to be proud of the accomplishments of my company. How can the creator find fulfillment or completion in that which he has made? Fulfillment comes from within, not from that which is created without.
The loves of our soul can go wrong not only with what we make for of of ourselves, but also with what is given us—the gifts of Fulfillment rather than Fulfillment Himself. She satisfies all of my deepest needs. He makes us see what we don’t want to admit because he knows that disordered love not only causes disorder in the lives of others (I can never meet his deepest needs; I can’t measure up) but deep disappointment and pain in our own as well (I thought she would always be there for me).
He exposes, but then empowers. Truth is power, as philosophers have said. The work of Fulfillment is evidence of this. To know the truth about our own souls is an awesome thing. His insights cut us to the core. Truth does a work in our soul. He reveals, reorders, and reorients. He empowers the soul to have its flow reversed, from a conduit of grasping to a conduit of giving. He will make something through me. We, the followers and friends-in-the-making of Fulfillment, find that after we find Him, he leads us on this paradoxical path of pain and joy. There is still so much disorder in our souls, and yet Fulfillment tutors us in a life of giving to the extent that we get what He has to offer and give it away, sometimes freely—knowing that His supply of Fulfillment is endless, and sometimes half-halfheartedly—affected by the residual grasping in our souls.
I now know with certainty that the rest of my life will involve this tension. I know it because I know enough of my heart to know that a liar and thief still resides in me. An adulterer too. Even a murderer. The propensity to grasp rather than give keeps its hold in my heart. I live in the tension between being a sinner while being called to live according to God’s design for me, which is a calling to love. I am a self-centered individual more times than not, though I am attempting to learn to be a conduit of giving. The point is not for you to know more about my spiritual journey, however, but for you to be encouraged in your own navigation of that tension—the journey of a grasper learning to give as a follower of Jesus.
Diversity of Communities
Liberals are supposed to be the champions of freedom and opportunity to live as one pleases. However, they are not the champions of the freedom of local communities to live as they please corporately. They have, in the 20th century, worked for diversity at the federal level to the extent that local communities are being restricted from ordering their communities as they please. One of the great hopes of diversity is that by allowing difference, we can gain appreciation. But appreciation for what? For the sake of appreciation? Diversity cannot be an end in itself. Yes, there can be many ways of living that are all good. But not all ways of living are good. Some ways of living are better than others. Liberals have not hesitated to argue that the Scandinavian way of doing social welfare is superior to the American, for example. Yet, the US has the perfect system for allowing diversity of this type—diversity of ways of life, diversity of choices about how to organize our communities and distribute our resources—to function within our federal structure. But instead of doing so, both liberals and conservatives, have led our nation on a path of centralizing power and jurisdiction in D.C. It makes sense for the conservatives. They want to keep things the same and what better way to do so than to use the federal government’s central power and authority to do so. However, the liberals should know that allowing diversity within communities is a better way. People want liberty not just to choose how they live, but also to choose between diverse types of communities. Allowing communities to forge ahead, organizing themselves and their way of life in unique ways, solving problems in new ways, and selecting values they deem important could create a wonderful diversity of communities throughout the US which would free people to live in communities of their choosing. It would also allow communities to borrow ideas and make improvements based on the experience of other communities. If the trend of centralizing of power in D.C. continues, there will be more and more uniformity of communities. That will not be a good thing for the US’s experiment with self-government.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)