The Rot: Part II

This post is part of a series that started last week 8/3/2012

Picture this:

You’re driving along a local interstate singing along with the radio and drumming on the steering wheel. Out of nowhere a red sports car cuts dangerously close in front of you while applying its brakes in a reckless attempt to make the exit ramp you yourself were about to pass. You stomp on your own brakes and find yourself swerving a little bit, heart racing, before you regain control of your car.

“(Insert expletive of choice here) !!! What’s that idiot think he’s doing!?! Does he want to get us all killed with a stupid stunt like that? Why didn’t he get over a ½ mile ago?” you fume angrily. But what is the underlying cause of your anger? Isn’t it that this idiot did something reckless that he obviously should not have done; something that put other people in danger? Isn’t it that he didn’t act the way any thinking person should act? How do you know, however, that the way you think he should have acted, really is the way he should have acted? You didn’t know that he just realized that his passenger, his wife, is having a severe stroke, and that the exit he got off on happened to be the exit for a hospital located just off the highway.

The rot that sits festering in the heart of humanity is complex. I don’t think it can be summed up in a single word like pride, lust, or gluttony. To start discussing it, however, I would start with an aspect of humanity that magnifies its effects: no one ever knows that they’re wrong.

Have you ever thought about that? It’s true; no one ever knows that they’re wrong. If Alan holds opinion A, he does so because he believes that he is right in holding opinion A. The process of changing his opinion begins with being convinced of the truth of a different opinion, opinion B. It is only in light of opinion B that Alan realizes that opinion A is incorrect. In other words, he has already switched camps before he has the conscious recognition that opinion A was wrong. At no point in this changing of opinions does Alan ever hold an opinion that he believes to be wrong; by the time he realizes that opinion A is incorrect, he is already a believer in opinion B. This is important because it means that no one ever realizes that they are wrong, they can only ever realize that they were wrong.

Of course, once I realize that I will always believe that all of my opinions are correct, I must also realize that some of my opinions are undoubtedly incorrect. But if I hold some incorrect opinions but believe that all my opinions are correct, then how am I to know which opinions are correct and which are incorrect? I can’t. So not only do I not know everything, but even knowing that I don’t know everything, I have no way of knowing what I don’t know. If I never realize that I’m wrong, then how am I to know where I am wrong? This basic human finitude is not evil, but it makes humanity dangerous. We all, undoubtedly, hold some incorrect beliefs, but there is no way of knowing which beliefs are incorrect; and this sets us up for doing the wrong thing at the wrong time with unfortunate consequences.

Now, although we are prone to doing the wrong thing at the wrong time because of incorrect assumptions and opinions, the flip side can be just as bad. We will never know all we need to know to be confident in the decisions we make, but if we wait too long and fail to act when action is needed, then this can produce consequences that are just as bad.  Imagine that you’re driving down the interstate and you see a bad accident as it occurs. There’s a car that hits the median, flips several times and finally comes to rest upside-down. You stop as quickly as you can, get out and run up to the driver’s side window and see the driver, unconscious and hanging by his seat belt. You also see that there is smoke coming out of the engine and realize that something is on fire. There is gas leaking onto the asphalt and you don’t have access to a cell phone. Do you act, or do you wait for more qualified responders to come? If you act, there is a good chance that you will do the wrong thing; for instance, if the driver’s neck is broken, then moving the neck at all can cause paralysis or death. There is also a chance that if you do nothing and wait for the police that the gas could catch fire and burn the driver alive. What do you do?

This is an extreme example but it illustrates the conundrum that we face every day. Do we act or do we hesitate? It is not ever possible to have all the data necessary for any decision we make, and no way to be confident that we’re making the right decision, yet we are still required to make the choice: act or no? Because of our finitude we are doomed to make wrong decisions; and even when we make the right choices, we are bound to make them in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, or to the wrong extent. And every time we make a wrong decision, we are making mistakes and causing problems, and these problems cause pain for those around us. Therefore, we are doomed to cause pain and suffering for ourselves and those around us through our ignorance and arrogance. You see, the problem is not simply that we make some mistakes, it's that no one can stop making mistakes. There is no escape.

This basic human finitude is not the rot, but it makes the rot all the more dangerous. It concentrates evil and makes its effects more problematic just like a magnifying glass concentrates sunlight. Now, I realize that this is all very depressing, but stay with me, it gets better. Next week, I’ll talk more about the nature of evil, the nature of the kingdoms of heaven and of hell, and how our own addiction to progress plays into our inescapable doom. So, it gets better, not next week, but soon.

The Rot: Part I

The Rot: Part I

This is the first in a series of posts inspired by Batman: The Dark Knight Rises.

I’ve noticed a theme in American media. We seem to have a belief that our days as a society are numbered; and that our civilization’s demise is coming soon. This theme seems present in The Dark Knight Rises. The vision of Gotham, the US’s leading city, as a dying metropolis, slowly rotting away from the inside out; and the anger of the poor against the decadence of the rich seems to fall in line with that theme. To me, it seems that the movie is meant to be a mirror held up to American society.

 In the book 1984, George Orwell writes this:

“Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low . . . The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim . . . is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.”

“For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again.”[1]

This cycle is both endless and inevitable. As a historian, I would have to agree, for the most part, with Orwell’s idea. One can see his pattern acted out over and over again throughout the history of humanity. I would, however, modify the structure a little bit.

First, I would argue that none of the three groups really want equality, liberty, or justice at all. It seems to me that all people are motivated by a basic addiction to progress and prosperity. We all want more than we currently have. It’s easy to miss this fact when comparing the poor to the wealthy. It’s easy to see that the wealthy are greedy when they have so much more than they actually need, but still scrape, kick and scream for more. After working with and befriending members of all three classes, however, I have come to see that the very same spirit is at work in the poor as well as the rich; it’s just harder to identify when wanting more is the same thing as simply wanting enough. People, however, are people; and the way a man uses ten dollars is going to be very similar to the way he uses ten-thousand. If a woman makes excuses for why she should be able to cheat the government, she will also make excuses as to why she should be able to cheat the popular masses. People are people; we all want more; and this is part of what drives the cycle of revolutions. No one wants equality, everyone wants more.

 Second, I argue that although no one really wants equality, all three groups pretend to want it. This pretense is intended both for others and ourselves. We lie to ourselves so that we can clothe our selfish objectives in righteous indignation and justify atrocities both large and small in pursuit of the ever elusive “more.” So, the low take up the cause of liberty, equality, and fraternity and oust the high. Those who oppress with money are then replaced; but who are they replaced with? Simply by another group, motivated by the same spirit, to the same ends, but possibly by a different means. This is what we see in the Gotham ruled by Bane. The poor got rid of the rich and are no longer exploited by the wealthy, but now the weak and vulnerable are tortured and bullied by the physically strong and well armed. They simply switched one type of oppression for another.

So the poor criticize the wealthy; the weak criticize the strong; and the untalented criticize the gifted. It’s easy to criticize. It’s easy to talk about “them” and what a horrible job “they” are doing. Sometimes “they” are the religious, or the atheists, or the liberal media elite, or the conservative bigots, or the homosexual agenda, or the capitalists bourgeois pigs, or the welfare parasites. There is no shortage of “them” in the world. The truth is, however, no matter what group replaces “them,” there will always be a new “them.” That is because “they” don’t really exist, whoever we have labeled them as, there is only us.

Just like in Batman, a change in the ruling class will not heal society’s problems, because no matter who “they” are, “they” are still part of us; and the problem is not with “them,” it is with us. We are the problem, all of us; and the problem will always be misdiagnosed until it is no longer “their” problem, but ours. We are broken, and this brokenness, this rot at the heart of humanity will not let us go.

---

[1] George Orwell, 1984. (New York: Signet, 1977) 166.

Baby Reflection 1

Once you’re a Dad, everyone around you asks you what it’s like to be one. They want to know how different I feel now that I’m a Dad. Before Kaia was born, I wondered, too, what it would be like; and I pictured myself being constantly overwhelmed by the immensity of her life. Now that she’s here, and we’re feeding, and rocking, and cheering over her poop, I find that there is a definite difference, but that the content of that difference is extremely hard to explain.

The best way I have of explaining how I feel about having a daughter is that everything has completely changed, but nothing has really changed. At once, everything about my daily routine, the pattern of my thoughts, and the environment I live in has completely changed; but the underlying rules of the game, and the strategy for navigating it has remained constant. I am the same person, although my circumstance has changed; and although my roles in life have shifted drastically, the way I look at life is, currently, the same as it was before.

I think that this is a product of my approach to life. I have a tendency to focus exclusively on one step of one problem at a time and an ability to turn my thoughts on any particular subject off, almost at will. When I’m confronted by really big ideas and events that I can’t process in one chunk, I tend to tuck my chin, look at my feet and concentrate solely on the next step, refusing to consciously contemplate the immensity of the mountain I’m climbing. The only thing currently allowed in the forefront of my mind is the next diaper changing and how I can help my wife to get some sleep; I let my sub-conscious deal with the immensity of what this birth means for my family.

My life has changed, but life has not changed. I have not changed although the life I find myself in has changed. My whole world has been turned inside-out but it’s really still just one foot in front of the other; one problem at a time. So, everything has changed, but nothing has really changed.

A prayer for my little girl

 My God, I ask that you would bless my daughter. I ask that you would give her beauty; that you would clothe her beauty in strength, her strength in courage, her courage in wisdom, and her wisdom in love. May Your love saturate her; may it be all-encompassing and driving. I ask that she would know Your love and be Your love.

I ask that you would shape her in the image of Your Son, that Your Spirit would lie thick on her, guiding and forming her. I ask that you would fill her with a love for Your, for Your Kingdom, and for Your justice. I ask that she would abhor injustice, be discerning to see it, wise to know how to stop it, and courageous to do what is needed. I ask that she would be a sign, instrument, and foretaste of Your Kingdom.

I ask that you would help us to be good parents. Give us patience and understanding to raise her well. Help us to always understand that she is Your child more than she is ours; that we are foster parents helping to raise Your daughter on Your behalf. Help us not to screw her up too much, only just enough.

In the Holy name of Your Son Jesus Christ I pray this,

Amen.

Songs I've Written

Reference post:
Jesus: God's Failure

I'm keeping my word. I've posted a video to YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyqh6-nga-Y
of me performing a song I've written called Late Night Drive. This is harder than I thought it would be.

The Lyrics and another link are on the page "Songs" in the Sidebar, that's where I'll be posting any future videos of my songs.

The Answer Is Not 42 (But Don't Panic)

                If you want to understand my theology; and really, if you want to know me, I guess this is where you should start. You see, I believe that I’ve found the answer to life, the universe, and everything; and, don’t panic now, it’s not 42. The answer is peace.

                What is Peace? Etymology is very interesting to me and an interesting way to look into word meanings. My favorite etymology dictionary is www.etymonline.com (I highly recommend it) and it says this about peace:

“mid-12c., "freedom from civil disorder," from Anglo-Norm. pes, from O.Fr. pais (11c., Mod.Fr. paix), from L. pacem (nom. pax) "treaty of peace, tranquility, absence of war" (cf. Prov. patz, Sp. paz, It. pace), from PIE *pak- "fasten," related to pacisci "to covenant or agree" (see pact). Replaced O.E. frið, also sibb, which also meant "happiness." Modern spelling is 1500s, reflecting vowel shift.”[1]

I find it very interesting that our English word for peace is linguistically related to the word pact and comes from a Latin word for treaty. This seems to confirm what I find to be the common modern usage of the word to describe the absence of overt conflict. In English, peace means “There is no one currently trying put holes in me or lop off any vital pieces.”

                The Hebrew word for peace, shalom, represents a different take on the idea of peace. Historically, it seems to have been connected with the idea of wholeness or completion. Derivatives of the word pop up in ancient literature describing completed financial transactions, filling, and delivering. This idea then seems to have migrated to a physical sense meaning “No one’s trying to put any holes in me, and all my previous holes have healed. I am complete.” This idea was then metaphorically tied to prosperity, psychological and relational well-being and wholeness. It is a state of completion and fulfillment.

                If we take the Hebrew definition of peace seriously, though, we come upon a new implication. You see, to say that something is complete is to say that it meets a standard of what it is supposed to be. So let’s pretend that I ask you for ½ cup of sugar; now my sentence is meaningless if there is no standard of what a cup is. It makes no sense to speak of something as being complete if there is no measure of what completion means for that something. If we don’t know what a cup is, how will we know when we have half of one? The world works in the same way. We understand that people should not be discriminated against, that the weak should not be enslaved, that people should not have to go hungry, thirsty, or be forced to suffer because of poverty. How do we know? Because even if it’s not explicit, we know in our guts that the world isn’t supposed to work like that. There’s a standard, and those situations don’t meet it.

                So Shalom stems out of an idea of completeness; and the idea of completeness is inherently tied up in the idea of a standard. But standards don’t simply exist in and of themselves, they must be put in place. If no one establishes a standard, then any notion of completion is meaningless. Therefore, standards are dependent on personalities, and absolute shalom must depend on the absolute Personality. Shalom doesn’t simply mean complete, it means complete according to the design of God. Shalom is the world as God meant it to be.

                In the beginning, in the garden, as it were, humanity existed with God in perfect shalom. We had peace because we lived in perfect relationship with God and others just as God intended. And the whole universe functioned perfectly according to God’s design. But there is another important word in the Bible; this word is used for evil, it is the Hebrew word Ra’a. Ra’a comes from a root word that means broken. When humanity said no to God’s plans, we broke shalom. We broke our relationship with God, we broke our relationships with each other, we broke ourselves, we broke the world, and we broke peace.

                Shalom becomes, then, one of if not the most important ideas in Christianity, even in all of human thought, because it is what the entire Divine-human story is about. Shalom is the Eden from which humanity fell, it is the Canaan for which the Israelites searched, and it is the Heaven for which all humanity longs for. Isaiah, by defining shalom as our salvation paved the way for Jesus to be shalom. The Christ, therefore, was not only the means to peace, He embodies Peace. For centuries, people of all races have chased after this idea. Its shadow can be seen in Avalon, Camelot, Shangrila, Eldorado, and the Illysian fields. It is the purpose for which revolutions have been ignited, manifestos written and utopias dreamed. Every word, sentence and paragraph in the Bible revolves around this one single idea: the healing of all relationships, the consummation of peace.

                When I say the word peace, then, this is what I mean; not simply the absence of conflict, but the world as it was meant to be, as God meant it to be. We must understand the Kingdom of God, the divine – human relationship, the end times, and our individual missions through the lens of peace if we are to understand them at all. You see, the answer is not 42; the answer is peace.

---

[1] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=peace&searchmode=none

Jesus: God's Failure

                This past Holy Week, in a Good Friday service to be specific, I was looking at a picture of Christ at his trial, thinking about the issue when the question occurred to me again. Why did Jesus have to die? Why couldn’t He have simply skipped to the end of time, taken the crowds up on their offer and set up His Kingdom, physically, literally right there, right then? No cross needed.

Instinctively, I feel like I need a reason for why the cross was so imperative to our salvation, and I’m not the only one. There are several major theologians who have given time and thought to the question. If God is omnipotent and all loving, then why couldn’t He have saved us without sending His one and only Son through such a horrible experience? I think that one part of the answer may lie in our human freedom. You see, Jesus had to hold off fair weather.

                By nature, we humans want to be on the winning side. We live vicariously through our sports teams, athletes, celebrities, and politicians, and we always want to be on the team that wins. In sports we call these people fair-weather fans. They don’t care which city name appears on the jersey just so long as they get to raise a glass with the victors and avoid the long empty losers’ walk home. Fair weather fans can also appear in other areas of life. In politics there are people who will only vote for the candidate they think will win; and there are politicians who will only support the names and causes on which public favor rests. For millennia, military men have been able to count on the favor, and support of their native land – so long as they win. These might be termed fair weather followers: people who live through the victories of their leaders.

                Jesus didn’t want any fair weather followers. Jesus wants followers who are there because they love Him, and because they love His mission. He wants followers who will join Him in the hard labor of reconciling the world to God no matter the costs. So He did the one thing that fair weather followers cannot stand. He failed.

                To all onlookers, the cross was the epitome of failure. Ask any Jew, Greek or Roman from AD 30 about a cross, and he will tell you. A cross meant defeat; it meant oppression and weakness; it meant you got caught; it meant that you couldn’t cut it; it meant you made enemies of all the wrong people; and if you claimed to be a messiah, a savior of the people, it meant you had failed. The cross was the public failure of a God who didn’t have the decency to fail in private.

                But this was part of the design. In going to the cross, God knit failure into the heart of Christianity. Looking back, in hindsight, we can easily overlook the cross, painting over the harsh reds and dark shadows of the crucifixion with the gold, white and purple of Easter. Of course, Easter did happen; and yes, Jesus was victorious, but His victory came through failure. He saved us all by willingly clothing Himself in the tattered habit of defeat. In doing so, He set the precedent that we, as those who have taken His name, must follow. We are to be a people who lead by serving, who are first by being last, who live by dying, and who succeed by failing. Failing for all the world to see.

                See, only thing is, though; I’m not ok with that.

I don’t like public failure. I detest looking like a fool in front of other people, and I hate feeling others’ condemnation.  But Jesus doesn’t want followers who aren’t willing to share in His defeat. His cross forces me to make a decision: either go to the cross or turn around and walk away.  So, I must become ok with wearing the mantle of public defeat, of looking like a failure to the watching world. If I am to share in His success, I must walk with Him through His failure.

So, how can I become ok with this idea? I have an idea. I have several thoughts that have been rolling around in the back of my head for some time. These thoughts are of, I don’t know what to call them, endeavors maybe? They are endeavors that I think I could succeed at, but that I’m too scared to try because I’m afraid of failing. So, over the next 30 days I am going to try some of them. In doing so, I’m facing my fear of public failure, and, hopefully, beginning to move past it. Here are the four endeavors I am going to attempt:

1.       This blog – in this blog I’m going to put my thought life in the public eye to see if my ideas resonate with others. I’m committing to one blog a week, on Fridays.

2.       Try to write a deep theological book on at a lay reader’s level– it couldn’t possibly be published in a month, but I’ll update you from time to time on how it’s going.

3.       Talk with friends about concrete applications for theological ideas of deep and close-knit community, then apply them. I will do this at least twice over the next month.

4.       Post audio and/or video on my blog of me performing at least two religious songs that I’ve written.

This may go well, it may go poorly, but one way or another, it will go.

                So, what about you? Do you have thoughts rumbling in the corners of your mind? Are you afraid of looking like a failure? To join me, think of at least one or two endeavors that are a) somehow related to the Kingdom of God, and b) things you think you could succeed at but are scared that you won’t. Post your self-challenges in the comments section along with a time-line of when you will attempt them, then post the results when you have them.

If we are to share His name, we must follow His path.

Yes We Can

             Now, don’t lie to me.

I know good and well the following sentence has passed through your cranium at some point in your life “Some people are just plain jerks.” We all know it; we’ve all seen it; some people just need to be smacked. The only problem is that, under the current legal system, you can’t actually smack the people who need to be smacked. If you do, our nation’s sense of justice has become so perverted that the legal consequences are actually worse for the smack-er than they are for the smack-ee. Travesty. Or, even worse, sometimes you might find that jerks who are willing to blatantly flaunt social convention, are also generally not opposed to retaliating to being smacked with their own counter-smack, punch, kick, or half-nelson + wedgie and/or swirlie.

Now, these are grave issues facing our society; but, fortunately, I have come up with a brilliant solution. I propose that the Department of Justice form a special body of public officials specifically targeting violators of common sense and public etiquette. These servants of the public will would be tasked with finding those people who really need to be smacked, and then smacking them. I call them the Smack Police.

                Ok, so how does this work? It’s a relatively straight forward idea: if an Officer of Smack should observe some jerk committing an act of flagrant jerkity like trying to talk to someone when they are quite clearly trying to avoid being talked to, or speeding up in traffic to keep someone else from merging, or, more generally, doing anything I don’t agree with, then they walk up to the jerk, display their Smack Badge, and then smack them. It’s a fairly simple process.

                Of course, there would have to be rules for these officers of the public will:

               

                1. Officers of Smack may only smack jerks with one open handed smack, either front or back-handed; and, by implication, they may not use any kind of weapon.

                2.  Men may only smack men, women may only smack women.

                3. Officers of Smack may only smack adults 16 and over; although, now that I think about it, some of those young jerks really need to be smacked, so, the occasional smacklette on the back of a spoiled 12 year old’s head shouldn’t be out of the question.

                4. Smacks may be appealed if they are considered unwarranted; however, there are at least 10 years of bureaucracy between you and a verdict, so, really, is it worth it?

                5. Any retalitation against an Officer of Smack would be treated and prosecuted as assaulting a police officer; and trying to evade a smack would be prosecuted as evading arrest; so, take it like a man wussy boy.

                Now, I know what you’re thinking, “Who’s gonna pay for all this!” (Am I right?)Well not to fear good citizen. The great thing about this idea is that it would incur next to no additional costs in running the government. In establishing the Smack Police we would be giving a small body of people what amounts to a free license to smack anyone they think deserves it. That kind of privilege would be worth its weight in gold (appr. $920). So we wouldn’t actually have to pay these officials to do their job; the job itself would be its own reward; and, bonus, by forcing the officials to have everyday jobs, we’re forcing them to get out and mingle with the civilians they are tasked with monitoring.

               

                Now, one admitted problem is figuring out how to recruit these officers. You don’t want to accidentally hire jerks and then give them license to go around smacking people. Who wants to be around some jerk with the legal privilege of referring to himself as an “Officer of Smack”? You don’t hire jerks to police jerks; so, you’d have to recruit the right type of person to do this. Personality would be a very important factor. You might try hiring only those who don’t actually want the position. Appeal to their altruistic side and tell them that it’s their civic duty to hit people. Another strategy may be to hire only people who hate conflict and fighting, like a Buddhist monk, or France. These issues, however, are relatively small and easily overcome once the idea as a whole is accepted.   

               

                In brief, I am confident that, should my idea be accepted and enacted, national incidents of jerkity would fall dramatically. We would once again be able to walk our streets without fear of some jerk taking an obvious pot shot at our height, weight, long curly hair, or lack of athleticism (not that that’s ever happened to me). So, write your congressperson, start petitions, and let’s get these jerks smacked; cause, admit it, it’s a good idea.