Meditations of Existence and 1984

Anything could be true. The so-called laws of nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. “If I wished,” O’Brien had said, “I could float off this floor like a soap bubble.” Winston worked it out. “If he thinks he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously think I see him do it, then the thing happens.” Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: “It doesn’t really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.” He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a “real” world where “real” things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.

This is a passage from George Orwell’s novel 1984, in which a distopian world has evolved from rampant and radical socialism taken to an extreme. The state controls everything, and alters history to bolster the infallibility of its figurehead, Big Brother. A permanent hierarchy has been established, with the proletariats at the bottom and the Inner Party members at the top. Capitalism is non-existent, as is the free exchange of ideas. The central government tells people what to think, what to say, what to feel, what to do. And to ensure this, “Big Brother is Watching.” A pervasive, ubiquitous monitoring of humanity ensures the enslavement of people, as well as the compliance with Party philosophy and mantras. The most essential element of maintaining their iron grip on humans is the practice of doublethink, which means in essence to hold two contradictory statements in one’s mind at the same time, and believe both to be true. It requires the destruction of critical thinking and logic, the denial of objective reality, and the complete relativism that whatever the Party says is true must be true even when it contradicts observable phenomena.

“Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.” In other words, only events identically reproduced in a mind other than one’s own can be defined as “real.” Now, this is an ultimately fallacious viewpoint. True, no person ever experiences events exactly the same as another person, but that does not render the event irrelevant and meaningless. It merely underlines the fact that while there is a fundamental reality, no person can ever experience the absolute truth of it since each person views reality through the lens of their own personality, as educated by experiences, schooling, psychological influences, and beliefs. As hideous as this perspective is, there is a grain of truth in the maelstrom of deceit and despair. In this life, we can never share ourselves with anyone else, and thus never truly experience reality. And this may be a depressing thought, though not to the extent that a nihilist would feel. For there is a remedy. And here again we find the fundamental uniqueness of Christianity.

Christianity holds that in order to be saved one must be united with the Spirit of God; not merely in a metaphorical sense, or moral sense, but in actual fact. The Spirit of God, once invited, comes to abide within the human frame of the convert and, if given free reign, will animate the person’s body and soul to accomplish the will of God through the vehicle of the convert’s humanity. As uncomfortable as that may seem at first blush, this is actually quite a paradigm shift. For humans are no longer “on our own,” in the sense that each individual has a separate perspective on reality. The phrase “to be alone with one’s thoughts” when considered rationally is utterly redundant, for no human being has ever been anything other than alone with one’s thoughts, at least as far as other people are concerned. I can never “get into another man’s head,” “walk a mile in his shoes” as the sayings go. And we have such sayings precisely because it’s a sheer impossibility to express with total accuracy the inner workings of someone’s brain. This, incidentally, is why we revere the writers and poets who, to some extent, bridge the gap between their thoughts and ourselves. We are thrilled to catch a glimpse into the mind of others. “Every man is an island,” and so whenever we can find a bottle floating in the tide that gives insight into another island, it’s a slight lessening of the interminable loneliness that thoughtful people feel.

How does Christianity factor in? Simply by uniting our thoughts, our souls, our emotions, with God. And God, if He exists, created Existence. Therefore, He exists outside of the physical universe in which we find ourselves trapped. And since He created us to be like Him in some way, and He Himself consists of multiple persons which share an unbroken communion of thoughts and will, then several conclusions may be drawn. First, that if there were any way of uniting the thoughts and emotions of two separate persons, God would have the knowledge and ability to do so. Second, that if one person could be united with Him, and another person could be united with Him, than in a way those two people are united with each other. Imperfectly, to be sure; not because God is imperfect, but merely because their union with Him is imperfect. At least, while they exist in the universe. But here we see that we are no longer “alone with our thoughts.” We have company inside our heads and hearts.

Now this can be distressing in one sense because, having lived by ourselves for our whole lives, and having a predisposition to “look out for No. 1,” the idea that we no longer have sole claim to our souls is unsettling and difficult to come to grips with. Herein lays the bedrock struggle of living the Christian life. Because God, when He sends His Spirit, is not interested primarily in entering the house of our lives and settling in to watch us live from inside instead of outside. No, His intentions are to take over, to take the reins, to take the wheel, that He who gave His life for us to give His life to us should now live His life through us. Our thoughts are to be His thoughts, our words, His, our actions, His. We are no longer islands alone in a sea of existence; there’s a bridge built on us that connects our island with innumerable other islands, and communication with other islands is now possible.

Which brings us back to our original topic, the shared experience of life. And here is where the actual practical living out of the ideas we’ve been discussing becomes important. Imagine that all Christians comprise a body. This is not only a helpful metaphor, but a Biblical one. (As always, the Bible is the best commentary on all things Christian. Makes sense, doesn’t it?) The body is communicating with itself as it obeys the directions of the head. I tell my fingers to type, and voila! The fingers move and words appear on the page. So the mind is communicating with the language center which is communicating with the nervous system which is communicating with the muscles in the hand and fingers, which then produce the desired result of typing words. All this cooperation begins as each part of the body is in complete and immediate submission to the head.

Now, suppose one part of the body is malfunctioning; say, the arm is broken. The head may command the arm to move, to type as fluently and speedily as the uninjured one, but no amount of mental impetus will override the damaged body part, the body part that cannot obey. Much the same way, if a Christian is not submitting to the Head orders, the body cannot function properly; most certainly the cooperation between different parts of the body will be thwarted. Now, the analogy breaks down in supposing that the Head of the body Christian can be thwarted by a member of the body. The Head is able to accomplish His goals regardless of the body’s willingness to participate; otherwise, we must begin to question and doubt the omnipotence of God. However, the unwilling or unusable body part will not be participating in the Head’s use of the body, and as a consequence will not be able to cooperate with other body parts, or Christians as the case may be. So the Christian unwilling to let God have His head in the Christian’s life is doubly the loser: they do not experience the activity of God in their own lives, nor do they share the communion and fellowship with other believers in the deepest and truest sense, at the level of God’s Spirit moving among and uniting them.

There is another aspect of this ability to unite separate humans’ minds and hearts which finds its sole opportunity through a relationship and submission to the Spirit of God: marriage. “The two become one” is the famous phrase used to describe the marriage union, and this not only applies to physical and material union, but spiritual as well. Well, if the marriage is based upon both member’s devotion and submission to God, then a union of heart and mind can become a reality and not merely a symbolic aphorism.

Becoming a Christian has been equated with joining an army, entering into service. What many people fail to understand, however, is that being a soldier, like being a Christian, is much more than attaching a rank to your name and donning a uniform.

When you become a Christian, you are saved from your sins, you are counted as righteous, even as righteous as Jesus Christ. You are brought back to life from your prior condition of spiritual death through the imparting of the Spirit of God in your self. Who you are has been changed, what you call yourself has been changed; you are a new person, a new creature. And naturally what you do should change as well, right? So people, once they become Christians, set about changing their behavior, usually by themselves. Christendom puts great stock in eschewing sin, in the behavior that the Bible seems to say accompanies reconciliation and regeneration.

I myself spent most of my life, and all of my life as a Christian, attempting to avoid sin, both in the world and in myself. I have not been successful; in fact, I’ve been a colossal, sometimes, spectacular failure, and done damage to others as well as to myself, though by the grace of God the majority of damage has been self-inflicted. Nevertheless, I have been rather discouraged at times about my inability to crucify the flesh, to eschew the world, and resist the powers of darkness and sin. Understandably so; for as a new creature in Christ, I now posses the Spirit of God within me, who cannot abide sin.

Now, my soul is pure and righteous, covered and united with the life and blood of Christ. So all the sin does is bounce off my soul and rebound through my body and my surroundings. But it still has an impact, and the Spirit still gets front row seats to my own particular brand of depravity as the old flesh wars with the new creature. For all my devotion and genuine desire to be conformed to the likeness of Jesus, my behavior has not fallen into line with my intentions. No truer verse in the Bible bespeaks of my dilemma that that famous passage in Romans 7:14-24, ending with “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of sin and death?”

If we compare conversion with joining of an army, a valuable lesson appears. For the initial stage of joining an army involves a commitment, a solemn oath to do certain things in a certain way, one of which involves following orders promptly and thoroughly. Once that is accomplished the training begins. You are assigned a rank (the lowest rank), and given a new uniform to wear that demonstrates your new identity as a soldier. Are you a soldier? Yes. Can you call yourself a soldier? Yes. Can you fight like a soldier? No. That’s what basic training is for, to give you the knowledge, the skills, the ability to behave like a soldier. If you get handed a uniform and a rank and then told to go out and fight the enemy, you’ll be pretty useless for the brief period of time that you survive. Or, if you don’t get killed, you’ll start learning pretty quickly how to survive, the techniques and practices, the tricks of the trade, the drills and weaponry that all soldiers need to know in order to survive as a soldier. And usually you need to be taught these things from someone else. That’s where Basic Training comes in. Its function is to prepare you to fight, to move, to think, to use the tools needed in order to behave like a soldier.

Now, it’s important to understand that as soon as you took the oath and were awarded a rank and donned a uniform, you were a soldier. Your identity was confirmed immediately, and you are as much a soldier as a grizzled veteran or a four-star general. But can you behave as one? Does your behavior match your identity? No. Because simply obtaining a new identity isn’t enough to enable you to change your behavior.

And part of the training all soldiers go through is learning to follow orders. Perhaps the hardest part, since it’s so counter-intuitive to our regular, civilian behavior, it’s such a big adjustment. But following orders is as much a part of being a soldier as the ability to strip a weapon apart for cleaning, or learning how to take a hill, or anticipating an ambush, or learning how to plant an explosive device. In fact, following orders is the very thing that separates a soldier from just a mercenary, a killer, or someone who knows how to do those other things.

Following orders is the essence of being a soldier; you place your confidence and faith in your superiors that when they tell you where to go or what to do, you will go and do secure in your faith that their orders are for the best. Not necessarily your best, but the best in terms of the battle you are fighting or the war you are waging.

Too many Christians have taken the oath to become a Christian. They’ve received their rank as one of God’s people, and been clothed in the righteousness of Christ. But they don’t follow orders. They’re not effective Christians in the sense that their identity doesn’t match their behavior. (And as I alluded to before, I must include myself foremost among these ranks.) Now, some may have some training: they’ve read their Bibles front to back many times, they’ve been to church every Sunday, they’ve led Bible studies and Sunday School classes, they may even be evangelists, preachers, or missionaries. But do they follow orders? Again, that’s the essence of being a soldier, and it’s infinitely more imperative in a Christian, to follow the orders of God. They may be deadly with apologetics, have much education or great stories full of pathos that they use to tug on peoples’ heartstrings. They may be skilled in debate or evangelism. They’ve got the tools of the trade down. But if they’re not operating on the basis of waiting for orders, listening to orders, and following orders, then they’re not really going to be effective soldiers in God’s war.

The importance of following orders is rather obvious, but for the sake of space I’ll elaborate. In a battle or overall war, there are strategic objectives, goals that encompass the entire effort among all fronts. In WWII, the global strategy was to push back Germany from the Atlantic coast. On the tactical level is where the strategy is enacted and accomplished, and that involved pitched battles, gunfights and devastation, small groups of men pushing back the Nazi forces. When you’re on the ground, when you can see only a small part of the battle, you know only a little part of the overall strategy. It is the role of the generals and top brass to formulate a strategy that will win the war, and they are best able to do so because they can view things in a global sense. They can see the entire front, multiple battles at the same time. And so they give the orders that are communicated down through the colonels, lieutenants, captains, and sergeants down to the corporals and privates who are the lowest rank, who actually do the fighting and killing and retaking of territory.

Now, if the top brass can see everything clearly, then they will know what best to do to win the war, not just the individual battles. So their orders may not make much sense to those who can’t see the entire picture of the war, who are mired in a single engagement. But the best soldiers are those who, when given an order, follow it precisely and immediately, because then the higher levels can implement strategies that will win not just one battle or two, but all battles and ultimately, the war. So the importance of obedience grows with the stakes.

The analogy is clear. God is the top brass and sees the entire battlefield, all the fronts of human hearts, and has formulated a strategy that will win as many as possible. (He won’t win all, because of free will; that’s a whole other can of worms, but it’s not because He’s unable to. The terms of the war don’t allow for absolute victory.) So when He gives us an order, even if it may be utterly incomprehensible to us in our individual struggles and opportunities, we can rest assured that He knows how best to wage His holy war for men’s hearts. And the better our obedience, the more effective and efficient soldiers in His service we become.

Lastly let me point out the role of the soldier in all this. His first duty is to make the choice, to become a soldier. If you’re not a soldier then you won’t have gone through training; your officers won’t be able to count upon your general basis of knowledge, and more important, your obedience to follow orders. So the identity comes first. After that, your second duty is to follow orders during training. Some training methods and content may seem unimportant or objectionable, but the good soldier trusts that his instructors and trainers know what a soldier needs to learn and be able to do to accomplish his duty, and so complies with even the most baffling or boring of drills. Even now the primacy of obedience shines through. And once training is over, the real war begins and the soldier now makes use of his training to accomplish his orders, which of course is the third duty of the soldier: to follow orders on the field of battle.

You may notice that at every stage of the soldier’s progression, his main role involves a certain amount of passivity. He accepts his rank and identity upon enlistment; he learns from instructors and completes the courses during training; and he follows orders when carrying out his duty in battle. He doesn’t charge into the fray half-cocked; he doesn’t try to create his own courses of study and devise a training regimen himself; and he doesn’t decide which battles to fight in and when, where, and how to fight. His is an active duty but based on a passive acceptance, obedience, and faith in his superiors. The obedience and faith must come before the activity.

So it is with Christians. If we are to be the hands and feet, the very body, of God on earth, then that means we will be doing things. We’ll be active in His war, we’ll be participating in reaching people He wants to reach. But before we can do that, we must accept that He’s calling the shots, that our role is to obey not initiate, that we walk in faith and not in self-actualization.

Are you a soldier? Have you taken the oaths and put on the uniform? Have you gone through training and developed the skills? And most importantly, are you following orders? Are you quick to listen and quicker to obey? Or are you attempting to order the battle yourself? Are you charging in without training and without orders?

The Marriage of Heaven and Earth

I am not, by natural inclination, given to letting my emotions rule me. I joke with my cousin that I am “dead inside,” which always elicits a reproving look from her. She feels that such is a self-fulfilling prophecy; if I think of myself as dead inside, then I shall truly be dead inside because I will behave as if I am dead inside, so it won’t make a difference whether or not I truly am dead inside because for all practical intents and purposes, I will be dead inside. Confused? Good. Let’s press on.

I say this as a preface to a recent realization. As with many things that flit about in my mind, it involves God. And Sex. Not that I constantly associate God with Sex; quite the contrary. Usually the things of Sex appear in direct conflict with the things of God. But, in thinking about my relationship with God as a marriage, I was struck by the analogy of Sex as a climactic experience, a visceral rapture, an emotional high that adds an exclamation point to the sentence of marriage.

I enjoy experiences. Should I ever have the chance, I will no doubt enjoy sex a great deal. It is easy to understand why humans pursue sex so ardently, why they place such a premium on the associations with sex: physical beauty, stamina, etc. The easier and more pleasurable sex is to enjoy, the more fruitful and successful one’s life will be deemed to be.

And I think that often times Christians have a similar attitude toward God. We want a transcendent experience of God, a burning in the bosom; the “mountaintop experience” as it has become known in church parlance. We want such an experience because it reasserts our conviction that a) God exists, b) He loves us, and c) we are progressing in our relationship with Him.

This seems awfully similar to sex in the context of a relationship, doesn’t it? The quantity and quality of sex serves as a benchmark for their connection to each other, how much they love each other, and how well their relationship is going.

In this context the skyrocketing divorce rate becomes much more understandable, since part of the allure and pleasure of sex is the exotic discovery of something new, something hitherto unexperienced. And as the newness fades, so too must the conviction on each part of the other’s love and devotion, as well as their assessment of the relationship. “You’ve lost that loving feeling,” the Righteous Brothers crooned, and that becomes the excuse for jumping ship on marriage; the sex isn’t good, thus the relationship is floundering, and "I’ve grown accustomed to her face” (to complete the bizarre cultural references). I keep returning to Lewis’ essay “We Have No Right To Happiness,” but it continues to offer relevant commentary upon not only daily life but spiritual matters as well, and this is one of the main themes he outlines. Familiarity breeds boredom, and this spurs the search for the new experience, unavailable within the confines (a telling designation, is it not?) of the marriage.

Not incidentally, the “divorce” rate of Christians from a transformed, vital, and impacting effect upon the world directly relates to their divorce from a true understanding of their relationship with God. They want the mountaintop, and if they don’t experience it they think their relationship is flawed and needs to be fixed.

Once you experience that mountain top experience, the natural tendency is to reproduce it. But real marriage doesn’t work that way. As we established, sexual attraction fades over time. But in true marriage, it is replaced by a comfortable affection, a deep love and appreciation for the other person, an ever-increasing wonderment and humility as you understand more and more the other person, and as you are revealed more and more to them. That is the heady draught that a truly rich relationship graduates to: love that is patient, kind, long-suffering, faithful, never remembers wrongs, never stops hoping and forgiving, never fails. This draught doesn’t dazzle the taste buds like the first drink of experience did, but it satisfies and endures in ways the other could not.

But if the relationship is built upon the experience of sex, then when the sex disappears, usually one or both go looking for it elsewhere and doom the relationship most of the time. And here’s the kicker, fellow Christians. Get ready.

God doesn’t want to base His relationship with you on spiritual Sex. It’s okay for a towering experience early in the relationship, at the consummation of His Spirit entering your heart, the glory of salvation and redemption being applied to your spirit. It’s good, it’s holy, and it helps you to appreciate the wonders and promise of joy and pleasure that the relationship you enter into brings and will bring. But just as a marriage has to progress beyond sex, so the relationship between God’s heart and yours has to progress beyond that first experience, that anointing of the Spirit, that “mountaintop.”

The term “mountain top experience” refers to the passage in Matthew 17 where Jesus and the 3 closest to him ascend on a mountain and Jesus is transfigured into a glorified being. Peter is astonished and enraptured and wants to prolong the experience, to stay on the mountaintop with a transcendent Jesus and the specters of Moses and Elijah. But Jesus never meant to stay on the mountaintop; if he had, he wouldn’t have fulfilled his mission on earth and brought about salvation.

That first rush, that rapture of new birth seems so foreign and joyful that we want to hold on to it, to prolong it, to preserve it. In the river of life we want to stop the flow, to freeze the experience and dwell in it perpetually. But if you freeze a river, you have a block of ice; you have stasis, not life. Suspended animation.

On the contrary, the successful marriage consists of a daily exploration and deepening of the relationship between the couple as they travel the rest of their lives together. They come to know the other’s habits, faults, strengths, insecurities, arrogances, and desires. They know the best and worst of them, as much as is possible for one person to know the heart and mind of another. But it’s a process, a journey only accomplished by continuous experience, a daily, unspectacular (for a large part) existence. You don’t learn everything about them all at once, and you can’t learn everything about them ultimately. But your covenant with them keeps you together, keeps you coming back and plumbing new depths of self-sacrifice, patience, cooperation, honesty, and humility. But from this comes an intimacy that surpasses anything on earth. When you experience nothing as constantly and as deeply as your spouse, you reach a level of understanding and acceptance that is impossible in any other way. It’s a product of time, given the right circumstances from the beginning.

This is what God desires from His relationship with us. He may include a few spectacular and tremendous experiences, like the occasional sex of a couple in later years, but the relationship has shifted away from experiences that transcend to experiences that unite and create intimacy. As you go through your daily walk and include the Lord in everything, every decision and thought and word, you gain a deeper understanding of who He is as you see His impact upon you and upon the world through you. And as your interactions with your spouse reveal aspects of yourself that you were unaware of, so too does your walk with the Lord allow you to see yourself more clearly, to recognize areas in your life that still must be rendered unto Him, to celebrate victories and new life in areas of spiritual bondage and death. And as the peaceful comfort and deep intimacy of the successful marriage replaces the ecstasy of sex as the pinnacle of the relationship, the benchmark by which you measure the health and progress of the relationship, so to the increasing surrender and understanding of the true meaning of “Christ in you, the hope of glory” in your daily routine becomes the most precious and indicative aspect of your life with God.

Old Farmhouses

I have always been fascinated by
farmhouses, old abandoned wrecks that huddle
along the sides of backroads,
stare mutely as progress flashes by
on fresh Goodyears.
Like the skeletons of long-
dead animals
the ramshackle memorials hearken back decades
to when they were filled with life and activity,
when they mattered. Windows edged
with broken glass peer out at me,
seeming to cry a warning:
“enjoy your life while it is yours, take every opportunity
that comes your way,
sink your teeth into the succulent rind of experience,
savor the flavors that run down your chin, the blood of joy. Once
we were as you are, vibrant and young,
clear-skinned and well-groomed, home to
families and friends, center of commerce and communion.
Now we rest in repose, gray-hued and gaunt, a decrepit memory
that fades from relevance and hovers on the edge of
oblivion, only
flashes of the past in the windows of time flying by
on fresh Goodyears.”

1.1.10

Well, here we are, the end of a decade, the end of a year. The new annual opens before us like a virgin field of snow, full of white possibilities and the certainty of cold, wet disappointments. But that’s the pessimist in me talking. New Years Day is the moment for renewal, a resolve to do better, to be better. Reform bad habits, revise prejudices, revamp your expectations and insecurities for what the future holds. It’s a cliché to say so, but how long does this ever last? The dedication to lose weight, to eat right and exercise carries us through a few weeks, a month tops, but even the largest wave eventually succumbs to the land. The workout clothes and diet plans slowly or suddenly sink into lackadaisicality and the old man (or woman) pushes back to the forefront of our lives from whence it patiently waited for our resolve to falter and our dreams to fade.

Why? Why is change so hard to sustain? What is the catalyst for real, fundamental alterations in the fabric of our lives? Well, usually it comes with a tear, a rip in our life fabric, a crisis or a tragedy. We suffer a heart attack or hear a dire diagnosis, and suddenly the impetus to eat right and lose weight that eluded us for years comes as easy as breathing. We careen into a fence post or spend a night in jail, and that nasty habit of one too many drinks suddenly gets revealed for the danger it always was. We sunder a relationship with a friend or significant other, and all the things we took for granted or that we refused to change about our personality and practices become a priority to address. The change is in the mending, repairing the damage done.

But does it have to be? Do we have to suffer a loss or an arrhythmia to jolt us out of complacency? Can change happen because we want to change?

On the face of it, no. I’ve been trying to change for many years now. What exactly I wanted to change has, well, changed over the years (not much of it, but some). The fact that most of what I’d like to change hasn’t changed tells you just how much change has changed. That is, very little. Many people genuinely want to change, to be different people, to look different, act different, eat different, relate to others differently, without ever succeeding unless acted upon by an outside event. Some people are gifted with an iron will and self-discipline, and can change themselves by dint of desire. They are the exceptions, or exceptional perhaps. Maybe I and those like me who cannot change through will alone are the exceptions, and they are the standard. Either way, I am not among them. I enjoy some things too much to stop doing them by a simple act of will, and even if I could, the habits are too deeply set.

Which brings me to a ray of hope. For me, and for those like me who find themselves desperate to change but unable to accomplish this change without some help, some force greater than themselves lending a hand: the hand of God.

The hand of God is me. And you, if you are submitted to His will. I mean truly submitted, not with lip service or an intellectual agreement, but actual, literal, visceral submission to His will in your life. We are the bodyparts of God. When Jesus walked the earth, he walked in perfect submission to his Father’s will. The will of God was perfectly expressed through the Son, through the Son’s perfect submission. When Jesus rubbed mud in a blindman’s eyes, God was rubbing the mud using Jesus’ hands. When Jesus called Lazarus out of the tomb, God was using Jesus’ voice to call out Mary and Martha’s brother. Jesus was the perfect Body of God: Hands, Feet, Lips, Eyes, Mind, Will, Emotion, Faith. And now, right now, this very instant, Jesus lives in us.

Remember that we accepted Jesus into our hearts. That wasn’t a metaphor; it was a spiritual reality. Jesus lives in our earthly tabernacles. And as Jesus was the Hand of God through his perfect submission to the Father’s will, so too are we the hands of Jesus through our submission to him.

Paul calls us part of the Body of Christ, and what he means is that as God used Jesus’ body to do His will, so Jesus will use our bodies to do his will. Depending, of course, on how well we submit to his direction in our lives. Jesus submitted perfectly to God’s will, but he doesn’t expect that of us. He asks it, he holds it up as the goal to aspire to, but he doesn’t reject us when we fail to do it. The only consequence we suffer for imperfect submission is that we don’t get to participate in the body of Christ. If a man was playing the piano, and one of his fingers decided not to participate, not to be a willing and submissive part of the man’s body, then that finger misses out on playing that particular piece of music the man was trying to play. The man still plays the piano even if his finger refuses to cooperate. You may rightly object, “if a man’s finger rebelled against his will, how could he play the piano?” All analogies break down at a point, and since the man in this analogy is God, and God can’t be thwarted, His will still shall be accomplished with or without our help. But we as his body parts on earth miss an opportunity to be a part of the music He is about here on earth.

This is one of the major revelations that the ministry of Ian Thomas emphasized, and there is adequate Scriptural support to back it up. But more to the point, it dovetails with the character of God. God never seems to do things the way we expect Him to, and He takes great pains to wean us from the attitude of our self-sufficiency and pride in doing things on our own adequacy. He didn’t give us a list of instructions to carry out to get saved; He outlined the standard and when no one could meet it He fixed the problem in such a way that all we had to do, and all we could do, was to accept what He did through His Son, and trust that He is able and faithful to do that which He promised to do. Likewise, when He tells us to live like Jesus did, to participate in the new life, to be new creatures, to preach the gospel to all the world and make apostles of all people, what He’s asking of us isn’t difficult—it’s impossible! It can’t be done by any means man can devise! It’s a sheer and utter impossibility, completely beyond our capacity. And again, He did this on purpose, and provided a way to do it that requires from us nothing more than faith in Him and surrender to Him that allows His will to be expressed through His Son and His Spirit.

And I don’t know about you, but what I’d like to accomplish in the new year, I’ve decided, is impossible for me to accomplish. I can’t do it. Jehovah, You will have to do it. Amen.

I said He did this on purpose, and that wasn’t an idle comment. He did it on purpose, like He accomplished the salvation from Hell and death and sin in a particular and peculiar way on purpose. See, man, left to his natural predilections, wants to do things his way. That way, the glory and credit for success goes solely to him when things turn out well. And what does this do to the man but make him ever confident that he doesn't need help? That he can do “it” on his own capacity? Well, if God wants to save man, and man is unable to save himself, then before God can save man He has to break man of his delusion that man can save himself, can do anything of worth to God through his own abilities. So God does things that takes all the opportunities for man’s pride to kick in out of the equation: He sets standards impossible for man to follow perfectly; He engineers salvation so that man’s only option is humility and accepting a gift without any merit on his part; and then He bestows a new life to man that requires man live on the resources and ability of God, and not himself. Why, you may ask? Because God wants our hearts. He wants our dedication and love. That's why He created Creation in the first place, why He bestowed a likeness of deity upon man, and why He went through such pains to bring man back to Him after everything went wrong. He wants to share His life and love with man, and if someone doesn’t need you, and you don’t need them, then it’s that much harder to gain and keep their attention in any meaningful way.

God wants our dependence upon Him to be constant, unwavering, and absolute. He wants us looking to Him for our daily bread, the clothes on our backs, the shelter over our heads, the money in our wallets, the people in our lives, all of it. He wants to walk with us day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second. He wants a true relationship with us. Did you ever stop to consider the full import of the words “I will never leave you nor forsake you”? It’s not only to encourage us in our salvation; it’s an expression of God’s undying devotion to us, His desire to ever and always be with us and in us. He is sharing His life with us, and that means not only does He impart His Spirit to us to give us spiritual life and resurrection, but also that He wants to share each moment with us. What an awesome and humbling thing this is, that God wants to hang out with us forever! What wondrous love is this, O my soul!

“God needs to get a life,” the cynic might jest. “No,” you answer. “We need to get God’s life,” And here’s the conclusion to this, which brings us to our original point. If God is with us and in us constantly, if we are walking in faith and submission to Him and His leading, then what possible stronghold on our lives could ever conquer us? What trials that buffet us could ever defeat us? What minions of Hell could ever deceive and destroy us? Can a habit of overeating withstand the presence of the Spirit of God? It is so laughable as to be insane! Can a lack of job or prospects depress one who has the Inexhaustible living in his heart? Can loneliness or heartache overwhelm one who has the Comforter and Lover of his soul?

Turn your eyes upon Jesus…look full in his wonderful face. And the things of earth will grow strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace. Amen.

Climategate and the Death of Science

If God is dead, someone is going to have to take His place. This was the sentiment that ultimately led to the initially reluctant ascension of Science into the “vacant” seat of God. The skeptics of Climate Change have wondered at the veracity of the claims made. Despite the myriad of dupes who truly want to help save the planet, the perpetrators unmasked in recent emails seem to have an entirely different agenda. Think of it in terms of Morpheus’ famous explanation of the Matrix “What is Global Warming? Control. Global warming in the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to turn a human being…into this.” And holds up a squirming rodent. A lemming.

The believers think that humankind has betrayed their natural heritage. Intoxicated by their unique position in nature, they took the Biblical injunction and proceeded to “dominate the earth,” to bring it under their control, to serve their own ends, no matter what damage was inflicted. For the purposes of this essay, we will assume that the emails represent the truth, that the scientific community conspired to cook the books, skew the research to support their preconceived notions and political agendas, and silence any who oppose them. And by doing so, to destroy Science as it has become to be known, as it originally was intended to be.

First, however, we shall chart the gradual usurpation of God by science as the supreme authority and function-maker of reality, truth, and behavior. The changing of the guard began gradually as scientists began questioning and then rejecting the religious interpretation and explanation of the universe. “No thanks,” said they, “you fundamentalists keep your archaic traditions and backward ignorance, and go worship a grey-bearded old killjoy who scours the earth and rains fire and brimstone on anyone who looks to be enjoying themselves. We’ll take a more objective view of reality, thank you very much.” So God as the standard for Truth, the explanation of The Way Things Are exited stage left, and naturally the tendency was to look for a replacement to that which dethroned him. Science was on the rise, complete with a new lawgiver (Darwin) and a slew of prophets (Marx, Freud, Heidegger, and Nietzsche, to name a few).

Now, a delightful (though hardly unanticipated) byproduct of the elimination of that pesky nuisance God was the discovery that with God went all those injunctions against certain behaviors. Man was free to do whatever he pleased and hang the consequences (assuming there were any). This mentality reached its crescendo during the Sexual Revolution, and has begun another rise in recent years as more and more the values and prohibitions of any semblance of a Judeo-Christian set of morality are abandoned by the wayside.

Unfortunately, Nature, as we all know, abhors a vacuum, and just as Science had replaced God as the fount of knowledge and making sense of reality, the absence of God’s moral laws also left a vacuum of a different kind. Morality exists to tell humans how to behave toward other nouns. It is curious that humans need a moral code of any kind; other animals don’t seem to have one and get along quite fine just by following their instincts. If a human followed every one of his instincts with the purity of an animal, however, he would be generally considered the most monstrous and egomaniacal being ever to draw breath. At least, by every human he came into contact with. He would quickly learn that to adhere to his instincts with absolute obedience created intolerable conflict with other beings he came into contact with, and would reasonably expect a short, if self-gratifying, life. Consider the evil a man can do by following his instincts; the primary reason for this is that his instincts, unlike the animal world, are not geared merely for survival, but rather self-gratification.

Regardless, with the rejection of absolute truth (except the absolute truth of rejecting absolute truth) man was in a bind: how to behave? How then should he live? Again, science was tapped to fill the void, which it did (initially), with an appropriate sense of reluctance. After all, science is the pursuit of truth, of fact, to discover how the universe functions and why, which it accomplishes by observation and measurement. But how to measure a life? How to measure behavior? How to measure interactions with other people? How to measure what a man should and shouldn’t do? The scientist can’t measure the love of a mother for her child or the obligation to give alms the same way he can measure the light passing through a prism or the gravitational constant of 9.8 meters/second squared. This is one problem that science has yet to solve, though the disciplines of the social sciences attempt to redress the situation, with psychology, anthropology, and political science.

An aside: in no other example is this principle more evident that in the fraud known as Climate Change or Global Warming. Once scientists had reached a consensus that this phenomena was happening and that man was somehow responsible (which is utterly contrary to the very nature of Science; either something is a verifiable fact or it isn’t; simply agreeing with others that reality is a particular way has no bearing on whether or not reality really is that way! Science is not up for a vote; if it’s a consensus, it’s still a hypothesis, not a fact), then the science naturally suggested courses of action that must be undertaken. Among the first major culprits were major plants and corporations for disposing of waste materials in haphazard and irresponsible ways, as well as the military industrial complex for similar reasons, along with the pernicious practice of testing weapons (Goodbye Bikini Island!). Next came indictments on labor-saving devices like incandescent light bulbs, air conditioners, household appliances, with the latest crackdown involving means of transportation such as SUVs, trucks, airplanes, etc. This reached a ridiculous zenith when one popular musician exhorted a restriction on the use of toilet paper, a proposal met with general incredulity and skepticism and a rare victory of common sense and reality in the Climate Change deception. A corollary involved the very food we eat, as the carbon footprint needed to produce certain foods was calculated and condemned as extravagant and wasteful. This also allowed advocates greater measures of control over what people eat, what kinds of items they bought, what kinds of cars were manufactured, what people chose to do with their lives and where they chose to go, and so forth. All this was justified as helping to save the planet by reducing greenhouse gases that were causing Global Warming.

The dirty little secret is, however, that the agenda came before the science. For decades politicians and demagogues have been angling for ways to exert greater control over people’s lives, to expand government intervention into every aspect of daily life. Global Warming represents merely the latest attempt, and should it fail it will not be the last. But the foundation of science was need to cow and coerce acquiescence among the populace, and a cause that appeals simultaneously to human shame and human pride, undergirded by the authority of science, accomplished this nicely.

Inevitably, there arrived a point in the general encroachment of science upon society where some people took a step back and wondered at the tendency of sterilization that comes from an over-exaggerated scientific worldview. If people are reduced to ciphers, numbers on a page, different only from termites in complexity, then an unlimited potential for abuse arises, as evidenced in one man’s attempt to eradicate a people group from the earth much the same way as a homeowner seeks to rid his house of the aforementioned pests: with ruthless efficiency, determination, and complete disregard for objections to his intentions. Hence recent trends toward mysticism, spiritualism, and the glorification and anthropomorphism of Nature that have arisen, rebelling against the scientific disregard of the “soulishness” of things. Why do some choke up as a newborn enters the world, or the sun shimmers on the horizon, or a pale stream dances like a ribbon of sparkles as it bounds down a mountainside? Why do some rebuff innumerable advances for years from one person, but marry another within six months of meeting them? Karma, destiny, fate, and so forth; New Ageism had arrived.

Of course, imperative was keeping God out of the picture, allowing humans to keep doing as they please, so the mysticism and spiritualism sought involves impersonal and hazy connotations of transcendental meditation, yoga, and a variety of Eastern philosophies that provide some guidance and a thin candy coat of connection to something greater than themselves, without having to actually change any fundamental behavior or attitude. Madonna ties a string around her wrist, memorizes a few phrases and keywords, and suddenly embodies Kabbalah. Has she changed her behavior, or who she is in the slightest? Not a whit! But she feels better about herself and remains free to continue her life’s trajectory exactly as it was a year ago, or two or ten or twenty, and demonstrates a veneer of depth and philosophical enlightenment that others hasten to emulate.

Now, this is not to say that these spiritualists entirely reject science. Science provides a nice safety net beneath them, cushioning any philosophical tumbles that a theist might cause. Science still reigns as undefeated champion, providing an explanation of reality and allowing humans to pursue their own appetites and opinions. Science is in his laboratory, all is right with the world. (Though I suppose Science could be a she. After all, God’s a he and Science replaced God as supreme, so Science must certainly be considered a she. Perhaps as an amalgamation of Mother Gaia-Nature.)

It is vital to trace the progression of Science as an explanation of reality and source of truth and behavior, for the following reason. If God is dead and Science took over for Him, what happens if Science dies?

Well, you reply, no problem there. I see no indication that science is anything other than healthy and hale. But now we come back to Climate Change and the ensuing scandal that threatens to undermine the entire worldview that has been fostered by it. For Science has been built upon a foundation of absolute truth.

We’ve already talked about the rejection of the Absolute (usually conceived of as God) as the requirement for the elimination of God and the rise of secularism and scientific supremacy. Science’s main claim to authority was based on the objectivity and verifiability of its finding. If you prove paper burns at 451 Fahrenheit, or that water freezes at 0 Celsius, then anyone who cares to try to verify your findings should find that however they repeat or modify the experiment, the findings remain constant. Water always freezes at 0 Celsius; paper always burns at 451 Fahrenheit. To dispute those findings is to dispute reality; reality wins that dispute every time. And when reality finds itself at odds with religion, then logic and reason dictate that religion must be wrong. Because we can see reality right here; it’s indisputable. It’s not up for debate. And if religion clashes with it, then religion must be wrong. Correct?

And while Science maintained its pure veneer of objectivity and truth, it could dictate or prohibit anything as long as it could prove the harmful or disadvantageous results of said truth it was proving or disproving. If using DDT to kill malaria led to birth defects and premature death, if the results proved it every time the experiments were tried, then the pros and cons could be weighed objectively and a course of action decided upon a firm foundation of Science. Science was the ultimate ivory tower: untainted by human bias or religious hokum, unfettered by political agendas or practical traditions.

Until now. Because human scientists, after all, are humans first and scientists second. Because sometimes the data an experiment produces doesn’t fit into the agenda a human might posses, an agenda the research was designated to support. Because sometimes scientists want to bask in public adoration and prestige, to be trendsetters and policy makers, to make a difference with their findings instead of letting others interpret and implement based on their findings, whether they rejoice in the direction the data heads or not. Science is not, after all, immune to being manipulated to serve an end greater than simply determining the truth about something, to measuring data and making conclusions that can only be reached by using logic and reason based on the findings. If the world temperature trends for the last thousand years show Climate Change rising as the number of SUVs flooded the market, then so be it. If the research shows no average temperature increase for the last 20 years, so be it. Scientists aren’t responsible for having opinions about their findings, only for reaching those findings in repeatable, measurable ways.

Throughout the ages, religious procedures have involved three components: the people, the deity, and the priesthood. The people are those that give power to the religion through their devotion, obedience, and offerings, as mandated by the precepts and dictates of the deity. The deity could be a typical figure like the Judeo-Christian God, or the alternate versions from Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc. But the deity is ultimately the part of the religion that justifies the demands made on the people from the priesthood. The priesthood is the true power of the religion, traditionally. They decide what the deity demands and communicates this to the people. The priests at Delphi would sit in a room next to where the Oracle would speak under divine inspiration, interpret the words being spoken that they heard through the opening in the wall, and then relate these to the people. Whether or not they were legitimate is the element of faith. Catholics trust the Pope and bishops; Muslims trust the Ayatollah and imams; Christians trust pastors and evangelists; Mormons trust prophets and Joseph Smith; and Jews trust rabbis, Moses, and the high priests. This is a fundamental element of religion, the concept of the intermediary.

(Side note: Herein lies the unique position of Christianity in the pantheon of religious systems. For, in a true understanding of the Gospel, earthly intermediaries do not exist. There is one intermediary between Christians and God: Jesus Christ, who happens to also be God. Thus God is the intermediary between God and man.)

I say all this because the role of intermediary is dependent upon the people’s respect and faith in several things. First is the veracity of the deity the intermediary represents; if no one believed in God, priests, imams, and the Pope would be out of work. Second, and as important, is the trustworthiness of the intermediary himself. If the intermediary proves false or inaccurate, the people will either abandon their belief in the deity itself, or simply ignore or distrust whatever the intermediary says, no matter how accurate or supported his statements are. The trust is gone and with it the authority of the priesthood to legislate reality and behavior.

And this is the danger for Science. Because the threat of Climate Change has been embraced and advocated vociferously by the majority of scientists, though again not all, which should have given the populace pause. Science as a whole has staked its reputation on this issue, and should it be proven to be a hoax, science will lose its vaunted place of prestige and authority in the realms of declaring truth, behavior and reality. Like a prophet whose prognostications fail to transpire, science will lose the ear of its audience, no matter what future predictions or pronouncement it makes with accuracy and precision.

Whether or not Science should be given a second chance remains to be seen. Science as a field of study is a worthy and useful discipline, provided its limitations are understood. Like a gun, science fulfills a particular function, the description of reality, observable physical phenomena in the universe. But like a gun, science cannot dictate behavior, and like a gun it is only as benevolent as those who use it. A gun can be used for good, when understood and handled with discipline and discernment. The potential for abuse is regrettably present and springs from the very nature of the gun. With science, the potential for abuse is correspondingly greater, as science attempts universal explanation and understanding. Understanding the theory of splitting the atom can lead to atomic energy, a clean and nearly perpetual source. It can also lead to weapons of incredible power, which in the wrong hands can be used to hold a planet hostage, or at the very least decimate countless human lives in a moment.

But Science is still only a tool, a window into the natural world. When it is used or abused to serve political, ideological, or religious ends, it ceases to be science. If scientists understand this and resolve to merely investigate and describe reality instead of trying to change it, then Science will be restored to its true nature. Of course, this leaves the question of morality, the legislation of behavior unresolved, but that is beyond the purview of science.

How to Kill a Friendship: A Simple Formula

This is the story of how I destroyed a friendship in a single moment.

In order to give some context to the tale, I must explain a little about myself. I have always been, for as long as I can remember, the Good Boy. I behaved myself for the most part as a child, avoiding wrongdoing (or at least, the appearance of it) and thereby avoiding punishment, to the point where my siblings accused me of being my parents’ favorite child simply because they disciplined me less often. This was not born out of any great sense of purity or obedience to my parents as much as it was simply a mechanism of self-preservation. Looking back, I admit that it was partly motivated by a natural desire to please one’s parents and bask in their compliments for good behavior. For whatever reason, however, I didn’t do stupid or reckless or daring things very much, preferring to play sports, read and watch TV, solitary activities for the most part. I find this still determines the trajectory of my life.

Add my Christian faith to my natural inclination to avoid conflict and punishment, and you have what might be called a holy roller, or “goody-two shoes” I suppose. I didn’t swear or make crude and insensitive jokes, though I laughed at them an unfortunate amount of the time. I didn’t do malicious things to people, argue or scuffle, or disgrace myself in overt ways. I put up a good front.

My friend Larry, on the other hand, was the complete opposite. He was loud, boorish at times, and at other times downright disgusting, in a juvenile kind of way. He was a Christian as well, but his natural inclination was for humor and jokes. He forever would try to shock and appall people, and in me found an easy target for his needling. He would tell crude stories and expose parts of his anatomy better left unseen. I liked him immediately.

Larry married a woman named Kim, who was quiet, reserved, mature…in other words, everything that Larry was not. It was shocking how diametrically opposed they were in character, but she must have seen something in him to look past his antics, though she certainly got a full dose of them over the course of their relationship.

Now, the other thing you need to know before I begin this story is that Larry is a kind of throwback when it comes to certain areas of life and Christianity. He is enamored with the traditions and mentalities prevalent two or three hundred years ago. Despite his childish sense of humor, about some things he is very strict and old fashioned. This must have been a contributing factor in the events that conspired.

Around the time I was finishing up my undergraduate degree, a friend who went to my church was going to get married. Our pastor’s son and another guy from church were going to go, and I decided to come along with them. Larry and his wife were going to go separately. The three of us drove a long six hours or so to Rockford, Illinois. There we attended the wedding and afterward ran into Larry and Kim. We all agreed to go out for supper, so the three of us jumped into our car and Larry and Kim followed in theirs.

I don’t remember how it came up, but for whatever reason the other two guys suggested that I, who was sitting in the back seat, moon our friends following us. In a moment of recklessness I agreed, and proceeded to lower my pants and flash my gluteus maximus at the trailing car, probably about three car lengths behind us. We had a good laugh as we proceeded on to the restaurant, agreeing that this was just the sort of thing that Larry was probably chortling about as well.

Once we pulled in, Larry got out of the car, walked over to us as we asked him if he’d seen it, and punched me in the chest. Larry, being a physical type, was prone to playfully punch people in the arms, hard enough to hurt a little but not enough to cause any real discomfort. This blow was different, clearly struck in anger, and his face was stony as he demanded that I apologize immediately to his wife, still sitting in their car. No trace of laughter or humor was evident on his face, and it was plain that he regarded my compliance with his demand as non-negotiable. Though he gave no overt indication, the implication I perceived was that he was ready to force me to apologize if necessary.

Stunned, I walked over to the car and apologized to his wife. She was understanding, and admitted that she didn’t even see it happen, which belied Larry’s claim that she was very upset about it. I admitted the stupidity of my action and we went inside to eat. The rest of that evening is something of a haze; I remember sitting in the Subway and staring at nothing as my brain reeled, seeking to reconcile Larry’s extreme reaction with the brand of humor he usually enjoyed and employed.

That night, my friends consoled me, expressing their disbelief in his overreaction, his immediate jump to violence. Here was a man of the Lord, deeply spiritual, who knew the sort of person I was as we had had a Bible study together for a year, along with some other young men. Did he really think I was trying to insult his wife? Had he not done things and said things far more beyond the pale than what I had done? I was not defending my actions; they were wrong and juvenile, and had he requested an apology I would have been happy to oblige. The fact that he felt he needed to force me to apologize bespoke of something deeper at work. Either his wife was more upset that she let on, or I had crossed some line with him that he could not countenance. He had claimed that he was not upset or insulted by my actions, but had taken steps because Kim was.

That night I lay in bed, unable to sleep. Bitter thoughts and recriminations coursed through my mind. I was hurt, humiliated, and angry. How dare he! He, with the sensibilities and sense of humor of a junior high boy! What an incredible double standard! And the punch! What kind of man flies off the handle that way? Did he think I wouldn’t apologize? Did he not know me at all? I’m not the sort of insult people for a malicious laugh! Of all people to take umbrage with someone’s behavior, LARRY! Incredible! Outrageous! Despicable!

I awoke the next day miserable. I didn’t understand his actions, and I was keenly aware that I had been the root cause of this disaster. The one stupid, thoughtless thing I do in life (at least in public), and I fracture a friendship in the blink of an eye! Way to go, David. The more I thought about it, the more I concluded that what I had done must have offended Larry at least as much as it had offended Kim, if in fact Kim had been offended at all. I decided that I needed to apologize to Larry himself.

In a dubious move I eschewed direct confrontation and emailed him a lengthy letter in which I admitted again my culpability in the incident and that I felt the need to apologize to him. After doing so, I also said that his reaction to the incident was unduly violent and that he had offended and hurt me with his words and deeds. In a couple of days he responded with a reply that insinuated that I had been overly sensitive about the matter, but if I was going to demand an apology he would oblige. That was the tone of the letter, and I was not satisfied with his response, but not wanting to stir up any more animosity than already existed between us I let the matter lay.

A few weeks passed, during which he and I did not run in to each other. Then he sent another email in which he confessed that the tenor of the first email was as critical as it was apologetic and offered a more sincere apology, both for the incident and for the first email. I responded by accepting his apology and the matter seemed to have been laid to rest.

Except that I lost his friendship. He moved out of town, but even before then we never hung out together again. We never even talked or met again. My actions and his reaction had damaged our relationship beyond repair. It is one of the most profound regrets of my entire life.

The Death of Romance

Recently I watched a movie called He's Just Not That Into You, based on a book written by two screen writers from the TV series Sex and the City. I was ignorant of the story's origins when watching it, but that knowledge makes sense based on what I know about that show and what the movie is about. I was pondering the prophetic perspicacity of C. S. Lewis' last published work before his death, a social critique called "We Have No Right To Happiness." Note: I'm going to discuss some of the plot points to the movie and article, so if you're not interested in finding out about either, save this for after you've seen the movie. Still there? Then read on.

Lewis begins his commentary relaying a story involving a comment that a neighboring socialite made. In relation to hearing that a man had recently divorced his wife to marry a woman who had divorced her husband, this socialite said, "Well, after all, they had a right to happiness." Lewis ponders the meaning, implications and etymology of this particular phrase in various insightful and prognosticating ways. He distinguishes the concept of a right to happiness with the famous sentiment from the US Constitution, the right to the "pursuit of happiness." Without restating the entire article, which I highly recommend you peruse, the gist of what he says amounts to this: that sexual happiness (the happiness referred to by the socialite and by the husband when defending his behavior, whether they realize it or not) is transitory, based upon emotion and whim; that the pursuit of sexual expression has achieved a hitherto unparalleled position of condonement for any pernicious or ungracious behavior; and that women will always be at a disadvantage in this dynamic since they lose their sexual appeal as they age whereas men rely less on looks and beauty to attract women.

Any of you who have seen the movie I referenced at the beginning will immediately recognize the connection with Lewis' essay. For the plot of the movie is about a group of people, women and men, who are all in relationships or trying to get in relationship with someone, usually someone else from that group. Of particular interest is the subplot involving Scarlett Johansson's character and Bradley Cooper's character. Cooper is married to Jennifer Connelly in the movie, though we don't discover this for a while. The two meet in a store and converse for a while, obviously attracted to each other. Cooper's character then deflects Johansson by explaining that he's married. Instead of walking away and breaking all contact, he gives her a card and she pursues him, ultimately succeeding in a tryst. When he confesses this to his wife, she attempts to salvage the marriage, but then ultimately divorces him when she finds out that he's been lying about smoking.

(Side note: My cynical outlook on popular culture found it sad and instructive that a woman would forgive and overlook adultery, but overreact and divorce her spouse over a secret smoking habit. True, her character's father died of lung cancer, so there's some psychological explanation for it, but it bespoke of the culture's lassez faire attitude toward sexual promiscuity, which Lewis predicted 50 years ago, juxtaposed with the rabid rejection of cigarettes that pervades the culture. However, I can understand that for some people, it's not the act itself that they cannot condone, but the lying and prevarication that raises their hackles. Cooper was honest and forthright (mostly) about the affair, but consistently lied about smoking.)

While watching the movie, I remember thinking, "You're on a slippery slope, buddy," as Cooper flirted with Johansson and justified spending time with her, "as friends." Without alluding to When Harry Met Sally let me posit that men and women cannot be friends by themselves. That is, they can be friendly, they can spend time with each other as long as other people are around. But isolate them and temptation rears its head. Regardless, the parallels with Lewis' couple was striking to me, to see this man dabble with another woman simply because he perceived a lack in his marriage somewhere. Now, it is instructive that later in the movie we find out that the married couple had stopped having sex. The implicit message here is that men are sexual animals and that women need to continue to satisfy them sexually in order to keep them from philandering. A standup comic told a story (true or not, who knows) about how his wife stopped sleeping with him and how a gorgeous woman came up and complimented him after a show. One thing led to another, and he summarized it by saying, "Now, I'm a good dog, but you have to pet me once in a while in order to keep me on the porch!"

Well, if womens' only hold on men is their sexual appeal, then as Lewis says they will always lose to younger women since they lose their beauty as they age. Men don't have a lot of beauty to begin with and thus rely less on it to entice women, which prevents them from suffering a disadvantage as natural events take their course. A feminist might take this opportunity to rail against the base nature of males. A moralist might choose to criticize women for obsessing over their looks and attractiveness. I think that there is enough blame to spread around to both sides.

The fundamental issue at stake here is the nature of relationships between males and females. This is what the movie is about, and what the articles attempts to discern. As Lewis points out, more and more the prevailing attitude toward romance is simply to satisfy one's appetites and satiate one's lusts. And he counters this mentality bluntly:

"When two people achieve lasting happiness, this is not solely because they are great lovers but because they are also—I must put it crudely—good people; controlled, loyal, fairminded, mutually adaptable people."

And here is the fundamental point. When people enter into relationships for the purpose of satisfying their own needs and desires, the relationship is doomed. DOOMED. There is no way that another person can satisfy the need to be loved, the longing on the hearts of people for that unconditional, unstinting, unjudging, unwavering, unaltering, implacable affection and acceptance that every human being yearns for, if they examined their hearts and minds deeply enough. They need healing and restoration from the wounds and weariness of this world.

The problem with the characters in the film, with the two people in Lewis' essay, and with the mentality that is preached to all consumers of modern culture, is that they approach the relationship with selfish desires. They confuse attraction and affection with love. Attraction and affection are self-focused. They answer the question, "What can you do for me?" That is the question most people enter into relationships to answer. But this is negated before the relationship even begins! Because if both people are asking that of the other, then neither is able to fulfill that desire within themselves! It's like two people dying of thirst meeting in the desert. They see the other and exclaim, "You must have water for me! Please, for pity's sake, give me some water!" Both are in the exact same situation. But neither has what the other needs, so how can they attain it? Impossible. You cannot give what you do not have.

I have noticed a stunning flaw in most portrayals of relationships in mainstream culture, one in fact present in the movie. This movie ends, as most movies do, with several of the characters being united or reunited in loving, passionate relationships, though not the married couple. The married couple is the only couple that breaks apart, and even the illicit relationship between Cooper and Johansson is sundered. But the rest of them get together and we see their affectionate lives together. However, what is to prevent them from suffering the same fate as Connelly and Cooper? How will they avoid that gradual diminution of passion and mystery that undergirded their initial attraction? We see Ben Affleck and Jennifer Aniston's characters reunited and pledge to marry; what steps will they take to avoid the same failure? Because there hasn't been any reevaluation of what constitutes a strong and enduring relationship. Affleck's character was steadfastly against marriage, leading to his estrangement with Aniston. Aniston then sees the way husbands take for granted their wives' service and dedication, contrasted with Affleck's caring and consideration for her. In predictable Hollywood fashion, she renounces her determination to get married and reconciles with Affleck, who then proposes marriage to her. So they each learn to give in to the other. And this is the closest thing to love that we ever see in the film, and the single sliver of hope that one relationship will endure the storms and shoals of time. But they never verbalize it, they never express it in such a way that each can keep this in mind while they deal with the other's quirks and qualms. Their affection for each other is at its zenith, and in such throes do they make sacrifices. But will they be so humble, forgiving, and selfless in a year or five or ten?

There is almost a coldbloodedness to love, an icy determination to cleave to your spouse no matter what they do. The marriage pact is a symbol of this, a guiderail that keeps your eyes from wandering too far. Even when you experience resentment or a complete lack of affection for your mate, the vows taken before God and man (especially God) can hold you to your course. Anyone can promise the world while their blood is boiling in passion; to walk back into a room where your spouse and you just had a yelling match and you feel you were in the right but you still apologize and ask for forgiveness anyway takes a control of the will that most people don't cultivate or even understand. That is why Lewis says that successful marriages take "good people" to work. Because selfish people will only love you as long as they get what they want from you. And not a moment longer.

Obviously the moral of this story is that the more selfless you are the stronger your marriage will be, and the more you surrender your will to the Lord, the more you will be fulfilled by Him and can love and interact with your mate from the overflow of your heart, which is filled with the love of God. I don't expect to see that on any screen anytime soon. I hold out hope, though.

Raise Up a Child of God in the Way He Should Go...

I was meditating on the Lord as our Heavenly Father and on my relation to him as a son. You know how He has embedded analogies and likenesses in the natural world that inform and reflect upon our relationship with Him? Well, I realized that my walk with God as the Father should mirror how my relationship with my dad has changed. Read on.

When I was a child, I thought like a child, I misbehaved like a child, I was disciplined like a child, I was ignorant and selfish like a child. When I became a man, well....Let's just say that I have improved. I have a greater understanding of the world, of my own ways and means of relating to others, what behavior is generally acceptable and what should be left among the Lego's and action figures that decorate the landscape of my childhood. And a lot of this was because of my parents. They disciplined me. Corporeal punishment, or spanking for readers in Rio Linda. They saw me doing something I wasn't supposed to, or heard about something I wasn't supposed to be doing, they corrected me. They did so in love, knowing that present discomfort and wailing would reap a mature, temperate, sensible, and godly character in me for my adulthood. This goes without saying, or at least it used to. I happen to be of the opinion that if more parents spanked their kids once in a while, there would be a lot more mentally and emotionally healthy adults down the road. But that is beside my point.

So I was ruminating on some of the unfortunate things that I have experienced over the last year, and the Lord revealed to me that I was being corrected. Not that I was actively living in sin (I was, somewhat, the usual sins that we struggle with, but not rebellion) but merely that this was part of growing up. Because the Lord's ultimate goal is that I become like Him, like Jesus. Not only in abstaining from sin and dwelling on the Lord constantly, but also in how I relate to Him. Much like my dad. I have a wonderful relationship with my dad; our relationship resembles a friendship more than a parent-child dynamic. He disciplined me as a younger child so that I would grow into a man that he could have a more egalitarian rapport with. And that's the main point I'm driving at. The Lord disciplines us, corrects us, acts as the parent so that as we grow in our knowledge and love of Him, we no longer need as much correction and parenting, and can develop a mature relationship with Him. The ultimate goal is to be like Jesus, and Jesus is God, so we are to have the same relationship with the Father as He has with Jesus, the Son and the second person of the Trinity! Amazing!

It's instructive to note that as children we never liked the discipline we underwent; that was the point, in fact, to associate the behavior with the unpleasant outcome. Much the same, if we continue in our sins, even after salvation, we will bring about the discipline of the Lord, and that promises to be unpleasant. Because the Lord is not content to leave us in spiritual infancy; He wants us to be as close to peers as possible. And no person can continue to act like a child and be a balanced, healthy, and productive member of society.

Arrested Development was a TV show about the Bluth family, a wealthy family full of narcissists, self-indulged fools who live out of touch with the real world. The youngest of the adult children is Buster, who has been infantilized by his overbearing and possessive mother, and all the humor related to him is the various ways his behavior violates basic human morays and practices, not to mention common decency and common sense.

But that is how many Christians go through life, as spiritual infants; they expect everything to be done for them, they don't take responsibility for their own spiritual walk, they expect the pastor to provide all their Biblical exegesis and application, they divorce their earthly lives from their heavenly ones, and they assume that salvation was merely a means of escaping hell after death. Jesus promised that life on earth, here and now, would be animated and fulfilling through the Holy Spirit. We are to begin living in heaven even while we walk on earth. This way we won't be in Remedial Spirituality once we graduate from the world, but rather we will have a vibrant and ecstatic relationship that with culminate in finally being fully united with Christ. It's the difference between a man and woman being betrothed by their parents. If they begin exchanging letters, getting to know each other, developing an understanding of how the other thinks and feels, then when they finally meet they will immediately be able to interact on a much more intimate level. Conversely, if they never bother to get to know each other while apart, when they meet they will have to start developing the relationship from whole cloth. God wants us to begin developing the relationship while we are still "separated" by our earthly lives. (Of course, we aren't really separated, but at some level the metaphor breaks down. Take it for what it's worth.)

So, a question: Are you resisting whatever lesson and correction the Lord is putting you through? Are you developing your understanding and love of God while you have the privilege of faith? Or are you going to wait until you die before you bother to devote yourself to getting to know your Betrothed?

Regressive Revelation

Over the last year the Lord has been taking things away from me. First He took away my job when I got fired from not one but two jobs within 6 weeks of each other. This was the first time I ever got terminated from a job, and it happened twice! Needless to say I was distraught. He has since seen fit not to send me another opportunity besides a part time gig teaching at my uncle’s Christian school. This is not enough to pay the bills and since I’m broke I’ve had to rely on other people to keep a roof over my head and food in my stomach at times. My housemate has had to pay more than half of the rent/bills and this has led to increased tension between us. I feel unwelcome in my own house, so that serenity of sanctuary has been taken also.

I had been attending a bible study with two other guys from my church in KC, which was a great time of fellowship and friendship. We would hang out once every other week or so to play games in addition to the weekly meeting. It was a good group, relaxed and playful yet serious and thoughtful during small group discussions of The Ragamuffin Gospel. That ended in January, and I’ve only hung out with them once or twice since. The Lord removed that from my life as well.

And finally, my body is breaking down at an alarming rate. First, my overall weight is far too high and I have been trying unsuccessfully to lose weight for several years now. This has contributed to chronic back problems and gout. Whether or not this underlying condition led to some of the more recent and more debilitating maladies is unclear, though it certainly hasn’t helped matters. In February I walked 18 holes of golf and my big toe got red and painful, infected in fact. It remained so until my sister’s fiancée volunteered to cut open my toe and snip off the ingrown toenail. This he did in my parents’ basement after giving me two prescription painkillers, which didn’t kick in until halfway through the procedure. He did both sides of the toenail and cut a goodly portion of each. Unfortunately the toe remained infected and so I had to visit a foot doctor who gave me 3 painful numbing shots and cut off a third of the toenail to get out the ingrown part. She gave me antibiotics which I took, but the toe is still slightly red and painful, which suggests that the infection isn’t gone or that the toenail is ingrown on the other side and therefore requires more surgery.

A few weeks ago, however, I began to do exercises, trying to work myself into golf shape, which would allow me to walk 18 holes of golf without collapsing in pain, and thereby to save some money and get some exercise.

This involves an exercise called Hindu Squat, where you lower yourself down on your haunches repeatedly. I had been practicing this for the last few weeks before the toe flared up, but had gone easy on walking and favored the affected left leg when walking. I did a set of 100 on Wednesday and then 120 on Thursday, a new record. Friday I got up with pain in my left knee over the kneecap. It wasn’t too bad, just when I bent the knee so I did 60 squats and played golf (in a cart). I hobbled around the course, and by bedtime the knee was agonizing. I could not bend the knee without excruciating pain.

I called my parents and my dad came down to assess the situation. I could not bend the knee enough to get in and out of my car, so we decided I should return to Kirksville with him and get some treatment and medical opinion from a family friend and fellow church member Michael Lockwood. Dr. Lockwood diagnosed bursitis, an inflammation of the bursa sac, and recommended rest, elevation, ice, and compression. He gave me a knee brace and some special anti inflammatory pills from India. For the next week I spent my days with my knee bound and iced and raised. As a consequence of this, my other knee also began to hurt, as did my Achilles tendon. These problems are mostly gone, though I am leary of their return especially since…

I have recently had the other edge of the left toenail removed, requiring more painful injections and ministrations. Hopefully this will be the final requirement to get this toe healthy, though the other big toe is starting to show signs of infection. I’m hoping that this will go away with another round of antibiotics.

On the night where the knee began to hurt, I lay in bed and silently screamed at God. I complained and questioned, comparing my lot to Job, one degradation after another. First the livelihood and prosperity is removed, then the physical health is attacked. Why?, I wondered, fully cognizant of the famous response God gives when He answers Job’s pleas with some pointed questions of His own. When my dad came down for that weekend, we had dinner at my uncle’s house, and both my uncle and my dad prayed over me. I was overwhelmed with emotion, physically and mentally wrung out, suffering from spiritual vertigo. The presence of the Lord was palpable, the empathy was like a swirling cloud blocking out my sense of outrage. Comfort sprung up from the desert of my blistered spirit.

Then the Lord started healing me.

First He healed my leg, my knee. The knee is mostly healed, though still sore occasionally when I squat. The leg and other knee are feeling fine. The toe is healing nicely from the first surgery and should be fully restored thanks to the most recent surgery. I even received a word from the Lord about my weight loss struggles.

That’s the physical. The material side has radically changed as well. I got a job teaching at a vocational technical college here in Kansas City for a month, starting May 11. This may turn into a full time job in the fall. I may also have a line on a job teaching high school literature at a Christian school in Indianapolis, thanks to a friend’s recommendation.

Also, when I was up in Kirksville over Easter because of my knee, a cousin of mine came into town to visit her brother. She works at a Christian publishing company in Chicago, Tyndale House, and we had a long talk about the industry, among other things. I have been interested in a job in the publishing industry for about a decade; I’ve sent myriad applications only to be rebuffed time and again. But my cousin said there might be an internship over the summer I might capitalize on. So a dream of mine might be realized thanks to a connection through my cousin.

Now, if not for my knee, I wouldn’t have been in Kirksville to visit with my cousin, so that was one divine appointment that came out of the experience. But more than that was the absolute stripping of everything I rely on, all my crutches and illusions. I was completely aware of the fragility of my life, my lifestyle, the well-being of my body. I had two options: to spiral into depression, blaming God for my woes and self-destruction or self-pitying (which was my initial reaction, that first night of the bursitis); or to acknowledge that I am unable to even keep my body from breaking down on me, and throwing myself completely on the grace and mercy of God, trusting Him to live through me, to handle my pain (not remove it) for me, and to enable me to praise Him and thank Him in the process. Thanks to my recent reading of Bill Gilham’s excellent book What God Wishes Christians Knew About Christianity, I submitted myself to Him and said “This body is Yours, Lord. Do with it what You will. Help me to endure with You and through You.”

Two Sunday’s ago, a guest speaker at my church New Day gave an excellent sermon on the Ethiopian eunuch and his encounter with Phillip. Steve Carpenter, the speaker, illustrated the preperation of the Ethiopian for that encounter with Phillip, the trials, disappointments, and disillusions that he had suffered up until that moment. He talked about the passage of Scripture the man was reading being an exact foretelling of Jesus, and how the rest of the book of Isaiah was full of passages and allusions directly applicable to that Ethiopian eunuch. It was a brilliant and wonderful explanation of the provision of God, the intricate and intimate knowledge and caring that God wrought to bring the African eunuch to the point where He could use him, convert him. You must go to newdaykc.org and download the sermon, it’s marvelous. But this really resonated with me and my circumstances, giving me hope that whatever else happens, the Lord is using this suffering and drought to bring me to the point where when He speaks I will be listening, I will be able to answer in the manner that pleases Him. And I think that’s happening. I don’t know what the future holds, what more I’ll go through in dealing with physical and vocational challenges, but my spirit has been bouyed by the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, and that He will work out my salvation through me, in spite of and along with my own actions.

I close with this poem that has struck me over and over again recently.

GOD KNOWS WHAT HE’S ABOUT

When God wants to drill a man,
And thrill a man,
And skill a man,
When God wants to mold a man
To play the noblest part;
When He yearns with all His heart
To create so great and bold a man
That all the world shall be amazed,
Watch His methods, watch His ways!
How He ruthlessly perfects
Whom He royally elects!
How He hammers him and hurts him,
And with mighty blows converts him
Into trial shapes of clay which
Only God understands;
While his tortured heart is crying
And he lifts beseeching hands!
How He bends but never breaks
When his good He undertakes;
How He uses whom He chooses,
And with every purpose fuses him;
By every act induces him
To try His splendor out —
God knows what He’s about.
—Author Unknown

Indeed.