It should be obvious to my readership (if such a species still exists on this world), I have written little of late which I deem worthy or appropriate to share here. Lord willing, I will have something of the sort soon. In lieu of that, however, I will share the words of another, wiser man:

The mind that is the prisoner of conventional ideas, and the will that is the captive of its own desire cannot accept the seeds of an unfamiliar truth and a supernatural desire. For how can I receive the seeds of freedom if I am in love with slavery and how can I cherish the desire of God if I am filled with another and an opposite desire? God cannot plant His liberty in me because I am a prisoner and I do not even desire to be free. I love my captivity and I imprison myself in the desire for the things that I hate, and I have hardened my heart against true love. I must learn therefore to let go of the familiar and the usual and consent to what is new and unknown to me. I must learn to "leave myself" in order to find myself by yielding to the love of God. If I were looking for God, every event and every moment would sow, in my will, grains of His life that would spring up one day in a tremendous harvest.
For it is God love that warms me in the sun and Go's love that sends the cold rain It is God's love that feeds me in the bread I eat and God that feeds me also by hunger and fasting. It is the love of God that sends the winter days when I am cold and sick, and the hot summer when I labor and my clothes are full of sweat: but it is God Who breathes on me with light winds off the river and in the breezes out of the wood. His love spreads the shade of the sycamore over my head and sends the water-boy along the edge of the wheat field with a bucket from the spring, while the laborers are resting and the mules stand under the tree.
It is God's love that speaks to me in the birds and streams; but also behind the clamor of the city God speaks to me in His judgments, and all these things are seeds sent to me from His will.
If these seeds would take root in my liberty, and if His will would grow from my freedom, I would become the love that He is, and my harvest would be His glory and my own joy.
...
My chief care should not be to find pleasure or success, health or life or money or rest or even things like virtue and wisdom--still less their opposites, pain, failure, sickness, death. But in all that happens, my one desire and my one joy should be to know: "Here is the thing that God has willed for me. In this His love is found, and in accepting this I can give back His love to Him and give myself with it to Him. For in giving myself I shall find Him and He is life everlasting."
By consenting to His will with joy and doing it with gladness I have His love in my heart, because my will is now the same as His love and I am on the way to becoming what He is, Who is Love. And by accepting all things from Him I receive His joy into my soul, not because things are what they are but because God is Who He is, and His love has willed my joy in them all.
-Thomas Merton

On Gratitude

If we do not embrace those good things offered to us, why should we expect to receive greater gifts? Think of it: if you daily gave of yourself to someone, and received not a word of thanks, would you be disposed to giving greater gifts? And if your beneficiary reflects upon your gifts of the past year, and can only speak in expectation of more extravagant gifts in the coming year, how eager would you be to fulfill these expectations? Very little, I suspect.

At the start of this year, I was surrounded by new acquaintances, whose consensus seemed to be, "Good Riddance to 2008, but goshdarnit, '09 is shaping up to be a pretty good year." In this, I see only disappointment. It seems a simple truth: you cannot curse the past and hope for blessing in the future. To curse the past is to deny God's work; to hope in the future is to affirm it.


Having said these things, I feel I must beg your grace. I don't know what lies in your past. Some seem to have more to be thankful for; others seem to have greater cause to complain. For reasons known only to God, I have been given a life filled with comfort and relative peace. But this I do know: I have found renewed peace in facing those few challenges I have been dealt, and thanking God even for them. In my experience, it is better to live problem-to-problem, challenge-to-challenge, thanking God for each; than to live pleasure-to-pleasure, smile-to-smile, looking and grasping for the next. For hope is not found in circumstances, nor in objects. These rarely last beyond a moment, much less beyond a lifetime. Hope is found only in that unfathomable Source; He who giveth and taketh away. In all things, blessed be the Name of the Lord.

Thoughts on the Separation of Church and State

With the election looming, politics seemed to find their way into conversation quite freely, even in contexts where such discussions tend to be avoided like the plague. For instance, my workplace, a medium-sized family-owned department-style store. While I'm always up for a hearty debate with coworkers and customers alike, most of my coworkers seem quick to dodge the topic, whether because they fear offending customers, or they are just uncomfortable with intellectual discussions in general (a feeling with which I am utterly unfamiliar). But with the excitement surrounding the election, opinions found their voices at the counter.
One gal, who doesn't usually work the floor, launched into something of a tirade about the ignorance and hatred that she perceives and being fundamental to the Republican base. After roundly mocking some version of the stereotypical Midwestern farmer as being bumbling, uneducated, and quite literally idiotic, she made an obligatory comment about the hate-mongering of the religious right. Now, I was quite naturally disposed to play the (so-called) devil's advocate, and cheerfully suggested that if there is nothing wrong with religion (which she was kind enough to assure me), then perhaps a religious individual's selection of their civil leaders should be informed by the moral code of that religion. She disagreed. She made it fairly clear that, while religion may have its place in most areas of life, it should have nothing to do with
a person's vote. From there, we skimmed over some classic points of debate on the separation of Church and State, but I ultimately figured I should shut my trap when we started drifting toward a discussion of American history, and the intentions of the pilgrims and Founding Fathers (a debate I felt ill-equipped for, while she was even less so).
In the afternoon, I mentioned to another coworker that I'd gotten a little worked up over the Church and State issue, and immediately found myself in a rather one-sided discussion of Prop 8. (For those of you outside CA, the passage of Prop 8 would amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. This would reverse a decision by the state Supreme Court earlier this year, and reiterate the previous law, passed by popular vote in 2000. The proposition is supported primarily by Christian groups, and I believe it was the brain-child of a group associated with James Dobson's ministries.) She objected strongly to the religious origins of the effort, of course citing the separation of Church and State. As I didn't feel it would profit anyone to prolong that debate, and since my lunch was over and I needed to get back to work, I detached myself from the conversation the best I could. Since then, however, I have not given up thinking about it, and have come to feel that Church/State objections to such conflicts are based on three major misconceptions.

First: "The separation of Church and State is constitutional." This point is often discussed by many who are more qualified than I, so I will try to keep it brief. The classic response in any separation debate is to ask where it's found in the Constitution. The answer is, of course, the First Amendment. The text itself, however, is less than explicit. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Jefferson then wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, the Supreme Court introduced the phrase to actual law in 1878, yada, yada, yada. If you want more details than "yada, yada, yada," check it out on Wikipedia, or any conservative pundit who's chimed in on the issue. The point is, it would seem that the First Amendment addresses only the national legislature's ability to pass laws to empower or oppress any religious group. Does this apply to the case of a state referendum being funded by a para-church non-profit? You tell me.

Second: "Faith-based political action is undemocratic." The next misconception I've perceived about religious citizens is the idea that every parishioner is somehow voting on behalf of their parish. That, when an individual chooses to affiliate his or herself with a particular church, they lose their political individuality. Sure, some churchgoers will inevitably vote along their church's "party line," but that can be true of any social organization, such as a school, or even just one's neighborhood. But in reality, at least as far is the State can be concerned, religion is essentially an individual phenomenon. Here we may find it useful to make a distinction between "separation of Church and State" and "separation of Church and Religion." This, perhaps, is where the conflict actually lies. While I suspect that most Americans believe in some form of separation of Church and State, it seems that the secularist perspective has shifted to separating the State, no longer from the religious institution, but from any manifestation or practice of religion. This distinction can be pursued further, but for the sake of time, I believe I can use it to cut directly to the conclusion: that a unified, popular effort to pass a referendum (eg Prop 8) is not an infringement upon the separation of Church and State, but rather the right and natural exercise of democracy.

Third: The compartmentalization of religion. It is becoming increasingly clear to me the degree to which secularists are unable to grasp the all-encompassing nature of (some) religious belief. In my perspective, the notion that someone would check their religious values at the door when voting is, frankly, laughable. To me, that's about on par with saying, "when you vote, try not to care about your fellow man; we don't want love and charity to get muddled into politics." (I say this by way of analogy, not to suggest that religion is the only source of true love and charity. That, of course, is another topic for another time.) My coworker (from the first conversation) kept repeating, "when it comes to your minister, absolutely look to your religion for guidance. When it comes to the president, leave it out." In the last couple years, I've been no stranger to such assertions. In my concept of religion, however, that idea is inconceivable. For myself, and millions (if not billions) of others in the world, religion is not just "a part of my life;" it doesn't just inform my actions and my thought in church and at home. In my faith, my religion, the essence of who I am is realized. I am not just a Human who believes that there was a christ. I am a Christian, one who's life is and must be devoted to the teaching and the will of my Lord; that is, to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself. These things comprise the definition of who and what I am, and they should inform every thought and every action, every moment of my life. If that scares people, so be it. If anyone feels that my beliefs should be kept out of politics, they can try to find a way to keep me from voting. But I think that everyone must search their own presuppositions, and fundamental beliefs. We each have our own decision-making paradigms, and I have a hard time believing that anyone can truly say that they leave their personal beliefs at the door when they vote.

I may have a more thorough conclusion to add, but I know some of you have been waiting for weeks now, so this will do for now.

(For those wondering, it looks like Prop 8 did pass by a small margin.)

Some Thoughts on the Abortion Debate

A friend of mine; dear in heart, if somewhat distant in perspective; recently wrote a post about abortion, particularly as it relates to other issues in the modern world. The following is my reply. Scattered and incomplete, but it's here.

There is indeed a discrepancy between the public's responses to abortion and AIDS; abortion and global warming; even between abortion and care for children. It's sad to see, and it's wrong, but I do see an explanation for it. We are faced with the question "What can we do?" There are two practical reasons that Americans focus on the abortion debate. 1) It is domestic 2) It is concrete. While both AIDS and global warming can be addressed in part on a national level, they are both fundamentally international, global issues. Foster care, and care for children in general, is a much more domestic concern, but it is also the most abstract. It bring up such questions as "What is good parenting?" and asks what place the government has in the family; a topic few are eager to broach. While more decisive action can be taken in the matters of global warming and AIDS (e.g. pollutant restrictions and condom air-drops) neither can be legislated.
Abortion, however, can be approached more directly. (I believe it's clear that the abortion issue is not as concrete as many would say, but since I don't intend here to state my personal views anyway, I will address that at another time.) The debate in question is in part a moral one, but with a primarily legal application, thus it is a domestic debate. It is also a question of procedure: what can or cannot be done, so it falls within the government's realistic, if not just, jurisdiction. Simply put: it can be legislated. The American people and/or their elected representatives can vote on it. If we could vote to ban AIDS, we would. If we could vote to ban global warming, we would. If we could vote to legally bind parents, foster parents, and caretakers to rightly raise their charges, we would. Unfortunately, we can't. The moral obligations on these matters are often clear, but the action seems unavailable. But when confronted with the legality of abortion, a unique chance to make a difference appears. A voter looks at his ballot and says, "I can't do anything today to stop children from dying in Africa, but I can vote to save the lives of babies here in American." A congresswoman considers legislation and knows that she can't force China to reduce emissions, but she can vote to save lives here in the States.
This doesn't mean the abortion debate is more important. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But it's more approachable for many Americans. Inevitably, sometimes tunnel vision sets in, and we lose track of everything else. That's always a threat, and it's always wrong. May God grant us perspective to protect all His children.
To respond briefly and inadequately to equality between the sexes, I have a few, more personal thoughts. More sickening to me than almost any ill in our society is the absence of fathers and fatherhood. Our men are being castrated in every sense but the physical, learning how not to feel, how not to love, how not to take responsibility for our own actions. We are very literally breeding our own demise. It is true, women are bound by nature to be the ones to bear the burden of children. Even after birth, women are equipped to nurture the child in ways that men cannot. Who can say why we have these distinctions? I assure you I cannot. But what I can say is this: Men have no more right to choose than women. No matter what the laws of the land say, fathers have at least as much responsibility to their children as have the mothers. Leaving a child and mother to go on in life unsupported financially or emotionally is a tragedy and crime far greater to me than abortion. This is the disgrace of men. Though no human law can compel a father to love his children and their mother, I believe in a Higher Law; one which has little love for loveless men.
I have not addressed all I could, or even all I might have hoped, but take this for what it is. Another perspective; a perspective traced with grace and with wrath, bound by limited experience yet astonishing arrogance. But I hope that, in it, I might have grasped some portion of my Heavenly Father's perspective.

Entitlement

I am, at times, forced to wonder at our society. We, the so-called 'Middle-class,' not only have the audacity to foster complaints, feelings of entitlement, and demands for fairness; but we have come to build our culture upon them. I recently happened across an online advertisement which quite kindly enlightened me that, considering what a safe and responsible driver I am (perhaps even considerate to other drivers!), I should get something in return.

Indeed. Seeing as I have fulfilled my responsibility to my neighbour by taking care not to run him down in the street, I clearly have the right to demand something from someone. I beg to differ. The very car which I so graciously (if only hypothetically) maneuver through the hostile streets, in fact can hardly be called more than a luxury!

And what if that to which we feel entitled is denied us? We demand that management give a full accounting of the scandal, as well as an apology. It is assumed that, if someone is uncomfortable, if someone is unhappy, if there is some poor soul that is dissatisfied by a product or service he has received, then something has gone terribly wrong, and the victim's losses must be compensated for in no more than 30 business days. Even if the complaint is legitimate; if the unlucky chap that gets the short end of the stick really was gypped out of his cut, have we no grace? Can we not consider that vague possibility that the particular monstrosity of an institution we are dealing with bears no actual ill-will toward us, and was merely negligent in their duties? In the mighty name of Alan Greenspan, NO! We cannot! We will have our money back! We will be compensated! I will have that to which I am entitled!

Likewise, I consider the 'efficiency' of our society. The fast food phenomenon comes to mind. We begin with the idea that our food is cooked and partially assembled before we even look at the menu. One might call it a sort of corporate clairvoyance that Burger King always seems to know that I will be craving a Double Quarter Pounder (w/ cheese), and has been kind enough to whip up all the ingredients within the previous five minutes. The difficulty with this system is, of course, that one must get out of the car, walk across the parking lot (if unfortunate enough to have been forced into the nether-lands of the lot), into the establishment, and wait in line before ordering. Then, after waiting the interminable 180 seconds (give or take) to actually receive the food, this long-sufferer must repeat the first three steps, in reverse order. Needless to say, only the stout-hearted care to embark on such a quest, now that we have been presented with the brilliant innovation of drive-thrus. Drive-thrus were designed to be so efficient that even the "o" and the "gh" in "through" were omitted such that the phrase would meet the industry's aerodynamics standards. Increasingly, however, even drive-thrus are proving inefficient. The line to get your fast food faster is too long. Some even choose to simply enter the building to get their food, as in days of old. I suppose the next innovation in culinary efficiency will be an express lane for the drive-thru. One could purchase a year-long pass for this express lane, in which they will doubtlessly find lines longer than those for the standard drive-thru. But I find myself obliged to digress. My point here is that these developments are rather sad when contrasted with those who (quite rightly) view themselves as fortunate to have a mere twenty minute walk to and from the market to buy food for themselves and their families.

All this and more to say, I am rather fed up with everyone (myself included) going about thinking that we're good enough that we deserve something, and even more fed up with every billboard, commercial, and banner ad that tells us that we're right.
We do not exist to serve ourselves. We do not exist to be served by others. Others, realistically, do not exist to serve us. We exist to love and serve God, followed by love and service of others.
Whether or not you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, loving Creator; and whether or not you believe that Christ's death atoned for the sins of those that believe in Him, it seems to me that one thing is clear. The only way that humans can have a hand changing the world for Good is by sacrifice. It is by giving up everything to which we think we are entitled. Not only our possessions, but our rights as well; even those which are 'inalienable.' It is only after surrendering life, surrendering liberty, and surrendering the pursuit of the empty happiness of this world that a human can experience the true liberty which Christ knew in His life. I know this to be the liberty found in bondage to the Father and His Righteousness.

Take this and do with it what you will. Let me exhort you, however, to live in acknowledgement that your rights are worthless, first in comparison to the joy and honour of serving others, but Foremost in comparison to the joy and honour of the Service of the King. Complaints and demands are the tools of the self-lover; grace and humility are the powerful instruments of the Kingdom.

Essay #2: Self-Centered Society

The second: written on 9~28~2004

“Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor…” At this the man’s face fell.
He went away sad, because he had great wealth. (Mark 10:21b, 22)

Far too often, Americans today hang their heads when they hear this command from Jesus. Even worse, often we feel no such shame. Over the last several decades, and even centuries, Westerners have struggled with the idea of the complete surrender of personal affluence and “success.” Unfortunately, Christians have not been a significant exception to this rule.
There can be many reasons for this brand of selfishness, but I feel that the primary cause is that we have simply become comfortable with our situation. Certainly, there are many among us who struggle to “make ends meet,” but the standard even for those is often a steady three meals a day. I hardly need to point out that there are millions throughout the rest of the world who can barely scrape out one meal of spoiled or rejected bits of food. We claim that we have no money to spare, while ads on television daily tell us, “For the price of your daily coffee, you could support a needy child.” These cries for help from compassionate groups often fall on ears deafened by our culture’s distant but pervading pseudo-pity on the unfortunate.
How easily we seem to have forgotten Christ’s words to the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. To those blessed he said, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:35-36 NIV) To those cursed, however, he said, “For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.” (Matthew 25:42-43) Who can we accuse of being those goats if not ourselves? On the cross, all Christ had was His life, but even that was freely given for our sake. We have what we need and more, yet we so often find that we cannot bring ourselves to give up just a portion of our lives for the sake of our Lord.
To avoid continuing down this shameful path, we must be able to see past our own carnal desires, and perceive the needs of others. We have an obligation to serve, and who better to serve than those to whom we have something to offer? God is calling us to be grateful to Him for His provision, take a portion of that provision, and use it to convey God’s love to those under the oppression of poverty and starvation. Perhaps for one person that means giving up that daily coffee, for another it will mean devoting much of their lives and resources to work among those in need.
Some may make the claim, “I’ll give of myself when those better off than me give of themselves.” This is not particularly unreasonable, but neither is it practical. The fact is, many of those who are “better off” aren’t giving! If we all take this mindset, this leaves only Bill Gates and Theresa Heinz-Kerry to give to the poor; if they do not, we will not. Instead of this, we can take on the leadership that they are neglecting. We must allow the wealthy to follow the lead of the middle class, and be humbled by it.
None of this can happen, however, if we cannot give up the most fundamental vice: pride. Without first humbling ourselves, we have no hope to effectively serve God’s purposes in the world. To effectively give of ourselves, we should die to ourselves. Let us hang our heads in shame no longer.

Essay #1: Sacrificial Self

The first of my essays, written on 9~14~2004.

Freedom seems to be the most valued idea in the modern Western culture. Politicians push for it, the media glorifies it, the people praise it, and the evilest of men seek to destroy it. Indeed, it would seem that freedom is the center and lifeblood of our existence in the civilized world. The great words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty, or give me death” continue to resound in the spirits of all those that benefit from the sacrifices made by Henry and his comrades. Now, in this age of individualism and politicism, there are entire law firms for the purpose of protecting civil liberties. Representatives argue to protect the rights of their constituents. Individual rights have grown to be the foremost ideal in our culture.
While there is no denying the benefits of such rights, such a significant ideological tenet should not go unquestioned. Just how important are individual rights? How important have we made them? More importantly perhaps are the questions: How does this affect our relationship with our Heavenly Father? and: Is there any situation in which these rights should be forfeited?
In regards to importance, the denial of human rights is a tragedy which should be condemned. Our society, however, has expanded this idea to suggest that the maintenance of these ideas is the single greatest cause in the modern world. Such a claim is, frankly, idolatrous. Priorities have shifted from the glorification of God through a Christian love for one another to the glorification of man by way of a deceptively inward focus. Individual rights have become powerful objects of obsession, which we can and will be called to lay down for society and the glory of God.
In the last several months, the internal opposition to American intervention in the Middle East has been increasingly based on the cost of American life, as well as time away from home for the soldiers, for a cause with an unclear conclusion. The argument that these causes are not worth the price is founded on such “inalienable” human rights as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, these arguments seem to discount the human rights of the oppressed masses overseas. It is entirely focused on “our boys,” which is, in essence, ethnocentrism. One must suppose that those making such arguments would have been opposed to French aid in the Revolutionary War. Granted, the French government had many motives aside from the proliferation of democracy and free society, but the essence of the debate remains. In fact, the foremost difference between these two examples is that the vast majority of the Americans in the Middle East have, in some form, volunteered themselves for this service to humanity.
To reflect again on the Revolutionary War, Patrick Henry himself, along with many others, notably the patriot Nathan Hale, gave up or risked giving up great personal freedom and affluence within the social structure of the British Empire. Hale gave up the first and likely foremost of traditional human rights: the right to life. To suggest that American soldiers in some way have more claim to such rights than those in the Middle East is directly disrespectful to the Founding Fathers and their fellow patriots. They chose to support an idea which was likely to lead them quickly to the hangman’s noose, but could allow their countrymen to prosper.
The essence of this idea is the concept of sacrifice. Sacrifice cannot be truly and thoroughly discussed without addressing the epitome of human sacrifice: Christ’s death on the cross. This is such a powerful example, to elaborate seems almost disrespectful. Jesus, fully human with all the “rights” thereof, willingly gave up life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the salvation of mankind, allowing us to enjoy these gifts from God to us. Outside redemption through Christ, our fate is limited to death, bondage, and the vain pursuit of a vain happiness.
“Human rights” it seems, is really a misnomer. Humanity has no claim to anything. All we have, whether material, legal, or spiritual, is God-given privilege. Our culture, however, cannot seem to accept this truth. Instead, we continue to persist in a campaign which, though with noble foundations, can only produce the seeds of ungratefulness and self-emphasis. Who are we to have the audacity to say that our lives are our own? Our lives and everything we are belong to God, and to those that He wills for us to serve with our time.