IN-CURIOUSITY ABOUT NUMINOUSITY

"IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU TAKE A GREAT MANY PAGES TO TELL A VERY SIMPLE STORY."

"The long and short of it is that you have let the man slip through your fingers. The situation is very grave, and I really see no reason why I should try to shield you from the consequences of your inefficiency. A repentance and renewal of what the other side calls "Grace" on the scale which you describe is a defeat of the first order. It amounts to a second conversion -- and probably on a deeper level than the first."


"As you ought to have known, the asphyxiating cloud which prevented your attacking the patient on his walk back from the old mill, is a well-known phenomenon. It is the Enemy's most barbarous weapon, and generally appears when He is directly present to the patient under certain modes not yet fully classified. Some humans are permanently surrounded by it and are therefore inaccessible to us."

"And now for your blunders. On your own showing you first of all allowed the patient to read a book he really enjoyed, because he enjoyed it and not in order to make clever marks about it to his new friends."

This harsh commentary is of course from Uncle Screwtape and is the 13th letter to his nephew Wormwood. I will try to unpack this when I have a little bit more time and have consolidated my thoughts such that it does not require "a great many pages to tell a very simple story." Pray for me.

GRUMPY GRANDPA SPEAKS GRAVELY--FROM THE GRAVEYARD OF HIS STORY

From Oswald Chambers:

"I want to give you a strange warning: beware of the' gospel of cheerfulness'. Many well-meaning people tell us to ignore sin and gloomy people. What are you going to do for such a person? Tell him to ' cheer up?' Urge him to spend several weeks by the seaside? Give him iron pills?"

More on this later. But I am indeed one of those gloomy people, as most of you know all too well. This has been since babyhood--ask my Dad. But I do come by it honestly or should I aver, genetically/constitutionally. I had (have?) many appellations: such as "gloomy Gus" and the most memorabobble, "grumpy grandpa." (At least it beats Calvin's comic strip about his father: "Dopey Dad".)

"It's not me talking, it's the Prozac." --or the caffeine, which by the way is still getting rave reviews medically speaking, as the poor man's Ritalin just for starters, and is a good adjunct to serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine enhancers. "All Natural," don' ya know.

Actually there are really only two things (persons, actually) that work consistently for me, and both are based on "acceptance" of Puddleglums qua Puddleglums. May I add, fearless and complete Acceptance.

Flo is the first; "bless her heart"; but she introduced me not only to Jesus but to His Holy Spirit, about Whom I cannot say enough...obviously.

But if there is a purpose to all these "scripts" I write, the goal is to glorify the Triune God and to trace the traces of the Holy Spirit in history, including my history, which is the only story I can really tell.

It's also obvious that I get distracted easily, proof positive that I am not the Spirit and cannot speak for Him, nor can any religion. As Joyce said, it keeps constantly coming back to humility, which one gets only through repeated humiliations and rebukes; the source of these "big hurts" does not matter--God has used Assyria and Babylon just to name a few, without putting his imprimatur on either one. One of millions of apparent paradoxes about God; which as I said earlier, should be obviously expected if God is what/Who He states He is. We assume we know what this means, but when we do so, we are instantly wrong, dead wrong, and if it were not for the dyad of mercy/grace, we would not be here, "No, not one."

"Analyze THAT!!!!"

Message to the "drum throne": Be a drone!!!

"Keep it simple, silly."

Having said what I said in the previous post, perhaps the other side of the coin is the security to be able to refrain from "showboating."

For decades I have striven from the drumset to do "all I could." Improvising and trying new things all the while; my excuse was that I was using the method of the jazz drummers. Several leaders, including my own son John, have urged me to simplify, simplify, simplify. I had the opportunity to go a bit deeper with Gary, our present leader, and taking the time to listen to his concerns and understanding him better as a unique person but also as one who can teach, if the heart be receptive, has been healthy. So I've decided to try not jazz drumming which tends to be rather cerebral and "Renaissance" anyway, but rather soul drumming which emphasizes the "groove."

Worship music should lend itself to dancing, I have come to sense. Kind of like Duke Ellington's music did. (but not his sacred music which was more operatic)

If I am going to do "basso continuo" (the bass is the least obstrusive of all instruments, when done correctly) maybe I should change my tone!!! "Shrill" is currently in a state of surplus; and seeing how high and loud one can go is no test of competence or taste. Bonhoffer's biographer makes reference to his subject referring a number of times to the relationship with Jesus Christ as being like a "cantus firmus" of a piece of music. "All the other parts of the music referred to it, and it held it together. To be true to God in the deepest way meant having such a relationship with Him that one did not live legalistically by 'rules' or unbending 'principles." Bonhoffer's fabled civil disobedience came out of just such a relationship-- to a Person who is also The Theme-- and which the basso continuo simply undergirds, it calls neither the tune nor the tempo, but refers in all things back to the Center.

Thots?

The mystery of the 12,000

Actually, the 12,000 hits to which I referred was in regards to the Christian Century article by Howard Mumma; which given the significance of the subject matter, is quite low indeed. But I am not suprised, and this non-reaction is the perhaps in part one reason that Camus chose not to make public his interest in the Bible; which is to say that that most of his readers would be deeply disappointed because they were reading him as one similarly disaffected as they were themselves after 2 world wars. The non-Christian existentialists existed, if you will, to damn the church and not to praise it, not even faintly; to get away from the church, not to embrace it. Apparently Camus in the end found his progress thwarted by his willingness to stand in judgement on other people, the very thing he tried to avoid in his fiction. It is an easy thing to do and a very comfortable resting place inhabited by billions--but it's a little crowded too...I know...more on the Christian community later, per Bonhoffer.

I have noticed this tendency to flee references to the Spirit/God and/or "church" in many other instances. To blatantly publish reams of opinion about Walker Percy or Flannery O'Connor without the trace of a reference to their Mainspring is to miss not only the point of their writing but to the significance they gave to their own existences. Percy in particular was most deeply influenced by S. Kirkegaard--a church guard, no less, and more thoroughgoingly a Christian than many thinkers (and non-thinkers) today in the religion biz. But I guess that critics usually think they are smarter than the writers themselves, any old how.

In regards to hits: I am being told by my own church magazine that blogs, after deeply influencing even elections in the recent past, are no longer relevant. So that I should in future restrict myself to sound bites, bon mots, brief quotations, and bumper-sticker philosophy.

This simply illustrates what Neil Postman and others have been saying about the inability of people conditioned to speed and entertainment alone, to be able to follow any kind of a sustained argument, such as might be found in Pascal or Montaigne or even Abe Lincoln. Are the governed to consent to rulers--like unto Rehoboam-- that cannot enlighten even themselves, or benefit from an actual accumulation of wisdom? Both Oscar Wilde and Alvin Toffler and many others in between and since have given us fair warning of unfair weather up ahead--"there is more to life than increasing its speed." One could also include brevity. The soul of wit, sure, but of what else?

The Japanese did not invent haiku because they were in a hurry!!!

To compromise on this is, for me, absolutely pointless. Its like compromising with Onkel Adolph-- it's never enough--as is the case with so many instances of "people-pleasing." If one is given a specific ability and told by God in various ways to use it, what of stats and "give the people what they want"? If that were not enough, there is the burgeoning presence of ageism. If young people will not tune in to anyone under 30, well, that's not only natural but it's their continual loss, and they will be burned by their own torches in not a short while because their own children also will be only content to carry their own torches and to obliterate those torches the previous generation tries to pass on. If there is no passing of wisdom, if each generation has to re-invent itself, it certainly would explain why we blindly barge ahead technologically but in no other wise, if I may pun. And is it not "tech" itself that we allow to drive us forward at an insane pace? Which no one will be able to sustain? This is the degrading of even information, much less meaning and depth?

6-20-10 FATHERS DAY GRACES

My greetings and honor to all you non-deadbeat dads, and to those who honor them. Thanks Dad, if you are reading this, I cared enough to send my berry vest. I trust Flo is treating thee and thine own well?

Here's an unfortunate turn of phrase that describes too many biological fathers--they have "hit and run disease." Particular honor then to those who become a father to the fatherless.

My wife--the wife if truth be desired to be known--is currently visiting my parents in Jacksonville, by her own delightful volitions. In her wake she left me the new bio of Dietrich Bonhoffer. Suprise, suprise, Bonhoffer was and is saying pretty much what I have been trying to convey on this blog, but only occasionally hear in "Christiandom" The term"cheap grace" originated in his writings, which is ersatz amazing grace; another term is "religionless Christianity" of which he became a prime example of grace under the noose.

More later--but you already guessed that. I'm off to spend the day with Mark and John.

Mumma's End; Et tu, Camus'?

It is possible that one of our greatest stumbling blocks in regards to faith/relationships is our difficulty in dealing with other people as a separate reality and yet as also being essential for our own existence and well-being. To quote Jean Paul Sartre once more, "Hell is other people." Or is it as Dostoyevsky said, " Hell is the loss of the ability to love."?

Similarly, it is quite easy to deal with God as an abstraction or an image/idol as opposed to dealing with God as a separate Person or Personality whose image is nonetheless stamped upon us. So our anthropomorphism and our confusion are the rule and we choose, if only by default, the "Plastic Jesus." It is people, not in the abstract but in reality, that offend us constantly; and whom we constantly offend. Or fear to offend.

Keeping this in mind, I would like to proceed and finish with the interview with Camus, observing the stumbling stone of offense which sadly is the same as for many of us.

"' But Albert,' I said, "haven't you already been baptized?'

' Yes,' said Camus,' when I was a child..... but it meant nothing to me. It was something done to me, no more meaningful than a handshake.'

' Well, the baptism of the child is not performed because the child is faith in God. Christ, which he baby clearly does not have. It is given because God loves the child welcomes him into the family of God. The baptism begins a process in which you begin to grow, even as an infant, into a new life, the gift which has been given to you.'

Camus replied:' But it seems right that I should be baptized now that I've spent these months reading and discussing the Bible with you' -- I had to interrupt, but I could not express my full thoughts. Christian doctrine holds that one baptism suffices; there is no reason for re-baptism. Only if there is some doubt that the person has been given a valid baptism do we re-baptize, and we call it a "conditional baptism." So on one hand, I wanted to deny his request for baptism on the grounds that it wasn't necessary. On the other hand, I sensed that Albert needed the experience. My compromise was to bring up the matter of joining a church and experiencing the rule of confirmation. That proved to be a mistake."

Right away, he jumped on me and said,' Howard, I am not ready to be a member of the church! I have difficulty attending church! I have to fight people all the time after service, even in your church. When I come to your church, when you are preaching, I leave before the service is over to get away from them all.'

I understood that, but I had to stand my ground.' The time will come when you can get away from people who are seeking your autograph or wanting to hold conversations with you about your writings. Perhaps they will simply accept you into the community of men and women. This community will remind you constantly that you are not alone and that you are a member of a communion, a company of both living and the dead all of whom are in the presence of the living God. In any event, are you aware of everything that baptism entails?' I asked, trying to give a little.

Camus shrugged,' My experience is limited to my early church training and the little that you told me,' he said, recalling that baptism is a religious rite performed by a priest or minister on a baby. He puts water on the head of the child and blesses it..... It is a religious miracle of sorts, so that if the child should die, it would not go to hell.' He said that beyond that, he knew very little.

' Yes,' I said.' The baptism is outward and visible sign that an infant has been initiated into the Fellowship of Christ's church. The child not only becomes a participant but also becomes an heir to eternal life. That is to say, physical death will not end the gift which is given through baptism.'

I went into more detail.' In the case of an adult, he may approach alone. The person then stands before the priest or minister as he addresses not only him but the entire congregation....'

I noticed a frown appeared on Camus face, but I continued.' The minister says that baptism is an outward and visible sign of the gift, the gift of the Spirit of God brought into the body and mind of the person being baptized.'

I noticed him cringing again. He must have seen a questioning look on my face because he explained:' For me, baptism and confirmation would be a more personal thing, something between me and God.'

' But baptism and confirmation are both the private and the public commitment to a life with Christ. They are a welcoming into the family of God, which is the church here on earth, both visible and invisible. At the end of the baptism, the minister confirms you as a whole responsible number not only of the family of God, which is personal, but also of the church, which is a community.'

Camus shook his head, leaning back in his chair, obviously disappointed.' I cannot belong to a church,' he said.' Is this not something that you could do? Something just between us?'

I cannot say that I blame him for his hesitation. Camus was one of the most famous Frenchman who alive. His writings touched the disaffection the people of France were feeling after the war. Display of this sort would set all of France abuzz, and many of his fans would feel betrayed. But his trepidation was more than that.

By his very nature, Camus was a man who could never belong to an organized church. He was truly an independent thinker, and no matter how modified his feelings toward Christianity has become, he could never be an active member of any church.

' Perhaps you are not quite ready,' I said. As pleased as I was, I could not fully commit myself to the idea. I would be leaving in a few more days he would have time to contemplate what he really wanted. This was a major decision for both of us, and I wanted to be sure that there were no doubts about his next step. A few more months, we could both be certain that this was the right decision. I laid my hand on his shoulder and said,' let's wait while you continue your studies.'"

(The site states that this has been viewed approximately 12,600 times. That is to say, not much.)

Big Picture people like us. Or do they?

Here is the promised excerpt from the New Yorker, from an article about the widely differing intellectual responses to the Islam of today.

"Lamenting many similar flights of the intellectuals in the long 20th century -- their noisy ideological identifications and terrible choices -- the late Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski once pointed out that, "However much intellectuals yearn to be both 'prophets and heralds of reason', those roles cannot be reconciled. The common human qualities of vanity and greed for power are particularly dangerous among intellectuals," he observed,"and the longing to identify with political causes often results in 'an almost unbelievable loss of critical reasoning.' "

"But, in these volatile times, intellectuals would do well to reacquaint themselves with what Kolakowski described as "the history of many deceitful hopes" -- the crimes of ideological passion in which even liberals have been complicit." -- from "Islamism", by Pankaj Mishra, TNY, 6/7/10

Yes there is that. This however is but the tip of the iceberg. I think that the author gave it all away with the phrase, "even liberals." What is this "even" business? It is a very strange way to end the article, tipping the audience to your personal bias; obviously the author is preaching repentance to his own crowd and trying not to be excessively harsh and end up alienating its audience. This would be then an Epistle to the Sadducces. The other side of the coin is the William Buckley/Pharisee response, "Oh no! It should be especially liberals!"

For all the talk about seeing things in shades of gray, this then becomes again a very black and white matter; humanly speaking that is.

Jack Nicholson in the movie "A Few Good Men," shouts his famous line, "You can't handle the truth!" This is a rather striking line especially considering the probable personal views of the actor who spoke them. But both types of bicameral side-takers noted above do exactly this when they conveniently proclaim that the other side is made up of conniving liars. There cannot be anything such as a liar unless there is reality/truth involved.

It is inevitable that Whole Truth is going to be unpleasant and offensive to literally everyone. So much so that literally all parties, and even two people from out of his own disciples, did indeed conspire actively and eventually openly against Jesus Christ. That is the reason that His Name is such an effective swear word, far beyond the word, "God." We simply do not have the breadth of mind or spirit be able to comprehend or get our minds around this Singular Person. We are not even able to evaluate ourselves, much less God, much less grace, and far much less the Trinity, which no single Christian has ever been able to adequately present; hence the faith factor becomes logically and inevitably necessary; and I have visited this in previous blogs in various ways.

Paul is quite clear in second Corinthians 4: "but if our gospel is hidden, it is hidden to them that are lost: whom the god of this world has blinded...." Elsewhere the Bible talks about a veil which is compared to the heavy curtains around the Ark of the Covenant, which were split apart when Jesus died. The world far less cognizant of the pervasive and worldwide veil than it is of the structure of the Temple which perished in 70 A.D. but lives on in the collective Jewish memory. This split curtain "in the heavenlies" as well as here now in Spirit is however, an opportunity to openly confer with the Creator; and yet very few people take full advantage of this openness; again, because we cannot handle the Truth and would rather drag in our opinions, points of view, and the classic Greek broken record, the "your truth my truth" which is obviously nonsense in the big picture.(Calvin accurately said, "Nobody likes us Big Picture people.", In yet another excuse/evasion to get away from Miss Wormwood's inconvenient queries and to get back ASAP to Planet Zarkon!!!)

Therefore I would, if I were writing the above article, would leave off the last phrase, especially the word, "especially", and even the word "even"! The opposition to "True Truth", which comes naturally to all of us; and which fulfills the edict of Camus about democracy, i.e.the really total and universal rejection and intolerance of Reality,puts us all in the same very crowded and about-to-sink boat. If anyone can think of a better ending, please share it!!!---

aguas en sus propias lugares/hogares

A word about: Water will scarce slake our thirst, but the Word as Water--ah!!! Shall I ever thirst more?

H2O is a unique substance indeed. Were it not for the fact that frozen water floats on its own liquid form, a rare thing in nature where solid forms sink to the bottom, we would not be here--there would be no icecaps at all and so forth. Not to mention the water that is 60% of me and you.

(Don't take a "water pill" unless you absolutely must. And definitely not for cosmetic reasons or because your shoes are tight!!!)

As far as I know we don't know exactly why ice floats (Dennis?) but I do know that like most elements, it has 3 Phases. All of them have their uses, but certainly liquid water get the most workout on the surface or biosphere. The Bible, even in the earliest book of Job, correctly describes the hydrologic cycle. Water vapor may have played a greater role in the younger earth than it does now, and is mentioned, as is ice and snow, but not very often. Although it does mention iced drinks!

The Holy Spirit in Acts is compared repeatedly to water; but contrary to expectations, not to its gaseous form. It not only flows down from heaven as a gift, but also from person to person, continually "recycled" if you wish. It also goes around the world, girdles it in fact, so that we are "the water planet." We are told we receive a reward if we so much as offer a cup of cool water to one of His children.

Briefly, my thesis is one that has been used before, and that is that people come in 3 forms also--frozen;overheated; and the form that continually "takes the lowest place."

The "frozen chosen," as has been used by many to refer to Calvinists and conservative religionists everywhere, still can be melted into a more useful form but only by the vast and limitless and undefinable Liquid of the Spirit.

On the other hand, we have noticed a lot of overheated rhetoric flowing like a mighty humid cloud formation and in other less visible forms as well. This could well define the liberal aspect of humanity, which tends to have a lot of castles in the air which also tend to collapse back into water once the Spirit dominates and turns down the natural energy sources, often through difficult and disappointing experiences on the ground level or in the deepest levels, e.g.,"De Profundis". Oscar Wilde expressed this extremely well. It has been my personal experience as well. Many of my; now, almost all of my great plans have come down to earth with a crash -- but our Liquid Captain of our souls has become for me, "rivers in which to swim." -- Book of Ezekiel.

The preferred phase for humanity is the middle form, the one that reaches lowest depths, the one that may be polluted but is never destroyed and eventually through the hydrologic cycle is made pure as possible for continued use. This analogy, like all analogies, is certainly not perfect and can only be drawn so far, as with all illustrations. I do not have time right now to do this but I would welcome your comments and please expand on this if you are moved to do so.

B&W:gettin' railroaded by my senses...or out of 'em.

From: the late Calvin and Hobbes

Calvin's Dad was known for teaching Calvin 3 or 4 "impossible things" in one Sunday strip. On one occasion Calvin asks him when color photography was invented. Dad told him that it was never invented; the whole world was in black and white until the 1930's!

On another occasion, Bill Watterson did a black and white strip, on a Sunday no less, in which there was no shading, just outlines. Calvin is disoriented at first, but as so often happens, the last panel shifts back out of Calvinland to Adultland, and Dad says, "The trouble with you is that you see things in black and white." Calvin replies, loudly, "THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETIMES THE WAY IT IS!!!"

Dad himself here trips from the land of disinformation--when he's feeling playful or sarcastic--back to the world of real adult aphorisms and "wholesome principles." when Calvin does something wrong or inconvenient. But have we not always been admonished to see things in shades of grey? Not being oversimplistic or rigid, etc.? Admittedly this is hard to teach, and often has to be more caught than taught. A dualistic mindset, which we all have in common whether we like it or not, is what we long to escape; either by pursuing complete objectivity(which is not possible physically esp. at the quantum level or in currently fashionable chaos theory) or by abandoning the project and subjecting ourselves to what some call, "Absolute Relativity," as in, "It's all relative." (All is largely unknown and quite quite quite large, and besides is an Absolute Truth claim that usually pronounced in no uncertain terms!!)

Oliver Sacks the nuerologist/writer, has shown us many strange syndromes including the case of a painter who because of a cerebral accident (?) lost all color vision. And there are those who have never had it--like the man born blind. People who receive their sight late in life are often dismayed and many try to continue to live life as if they were still blind, it is so disconcerting. Those who received sight in Jesus' day however were clearly joyful, so such miracles were across the board, from receiving not only sight but comprehension, coping ability,joy, faith and peace as well..i.e. spiritual sight, insight to go with the out-sight.

"Do you want to get well?" He asked the lame man at the pool.
A lot of people don't--in my office hands a statement that, "Part of getting well is wanting to get well." We call the sick role as often freighted with "secondary gain," all the way from grabbing govt funds to augmenting addictions, esp. the addiction of self-pity.

Speaking of patients, it is 0900 and guess what? More about black, white, shading, and colors later;sorry no time to proofread ...catch y'all later

Comedy for our Time (and half a time out}

From James Thurber's Fables for Our Time

"The Seal Who Became Famous"

The seal who lay basking on the large, smooth rock said to himself: all I ever do is swim. None of the other seals can swim any better than I can, he reflected, but, on the other hand, they can also just as well. The more he pondered the monotony and uniformity of his life, the more depressed he became. That night he swam away and joined the circus.

Within two years the seal had become a great balancer. He could balance lamps, billiard cues, medicine balls, hassocks,taborets, dollars cigars, and anything else you gave him. When he read in a book a reference to the Great Seal of the United States, he thought it meant him. In the winter of his third year as a performer he went back to the large smooth rock to visit his friends and family. He gave them the Big Town stuff right away; latest slang, liquor in a golden flask, zippers, a gardenia in his lapel. He balanced for them everything that was on the rock to balance, which wasn't much. When he'd run through his repertory, he asked the other seals if they could do what he had done and they all said no. "Okay," he said. "Let's see you do something I can't do." Since the only thing they could do was swim, they all plunged off the rock into the sea. The circus seal plunged right after them, but he was hampered by smart city clothes, including a pair of $17 shoes, that he began to founder at once. Since he hadn't been in swimming for three years, he had forgotten what to do with his flippers and tail, and he went down for the third time before the other seals could reach him. They gave him a simple but dignified funeral.

Moral: whom God has equipped with flippers should not monkey around with zippers.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Those of you who may have been around 100 posts ago may recall my first or second post, which was, "The Bear Who Could Leave it Alone" from the same author.
Those who have skipped The Thurber Carnival--well--"how could it be worse!!!???" Eh?

Anthony Esolen, a contributor to Touchstone magazine,said in the lead article* that, "Comedy Trumps Tragedy--in the Christian World, Comedy Is King." For example, "The pagans believed that the world was tragic, and penned their comedy accordingly. We Christians believe the world is comic, and that allows us to show humor on the move, with many a tragic possibility along the way. It makes no sense to forgive what cannot be otherwise. There is no romance in following the fortunes of a character fixed in place. (e.g. NOT Bottom the Weaver at/ et.all) Fixity is hell, and there is no forgiveness there. But there is something other than fixity in that cramped flat in Bensonhurst." (Referring to The Honeymooners)

Ralph Wood of Baylor, who is a scholar in 20th Century Catholic writers, authored a book called, "The Comedy of Redemption", which as one blurb said,"offers an enlivening approach to the study of literary art and faith. He unabashedly argues that eschatological grace is the impetus for earthly humor and joy...and admirably makes valid connections between the comedy of the Gospel and the comedic vision espoused by (Percy, O"Connor, Updike, and Peter deVries)." Dr. Wood was also one of Stephen Schuler's professors--but I got no discount on his books. (Awwwww)

I think Joyce's latest comment is helping me to lighten up. When I lose my sense of humor and "declense" into criticism--"Danger Danger Will Robinson--it's the Professor again!!" I seem to have recovered some joy in spite of my wife being OOT--visiting Stephen, Grace, Keziah, and 'Thea. Hope y'all enjoy this week as much as they will!!!


*May-June 2010

WORSE??!! HOW COULD IT BE WORSE!!!???

"What reason have atheists for saying that we cannot rise again? Which is the more difficult, to be born, or to rise again? That what has never been, should be, or that what has been should be again? Is it more difficult to come into being than to return to it?" --Pascal

("Wood hath hope") And if mere wood, which is here today and tomorrow cast into the fire, "how much more will the Father give The Holy Spirit to those who ask."

The Holy Spirit is actually the least evasive of all spirits, especially compared to our own spirits, which are not only prone to wander but prone to conceal their wanderings, not only from God( so we imagine) and the world, but most especially from their ourselves.

But His convicting familiarity and ubiquitous Presence not only generates contempt but willful ignorance and escapism from ultimate reality. We take for granted that that upon which we depend for our survival and well-being--ask any parent if this is not readily apparent in their own endeavors!!! (So thanks Mom and Dad--better late than never!!!)--will never leave us or forsake us even when we do as religious people have ever done whether majority or minority, in power or out of it.

When Stephen addressed the Sanhedrin, he was stoned for his trouble of bringing up not so much Jesus as for bringing the whole sad Jewish history of "always resisting the Holy Spirit", even or esp. while purporting to serve Him. He only saw and declared Jesus while actually on the killing field.

Centurion: "You're only making it worse for yourself!"

Stonee: "Worse??!! How could it be worse??!! Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah, then!!!!" (An early Jehovah's Witness) (from Life o' Brian)

PEGGED,FOR A DUCAT--PEGGED

For those of you who may have declined further interest in Camus as a result of the last post, I would remind the reader ,as I so have to remember to remind myself, any sort of rush to judgment esp. when "phraseology" is concerned, may cut us off from rational discourse. My point in looking at the other side of Camus is not reductionist, but he, as both a very private person and as a famous public intellectual--and more--has much to teach us if we will be patient. I am currently reading The Plague, as I said. One of the more sympathetic characters is a Catholic priest who learns to suspend judgment, not only in plague time but at all times. But for the average human, the reflexive answers we give to the persistent urge to criticize rather than to understand the whole person, are not just annoying but often lead to mass murder under many names and flags.

I would also contend that we have more to learn from our foibles, and the foibles of those we admire, than we can by studying our strengths--if that's what they really are. Our public face is also our "game face" which is also often our dis-grace, wherein again there is this very incandescent desire to live in separate kingdoms even though there is really only One Kingdom, not a series as in secular history, or a theoried "layered look" of endless parallels coming back at themselves -- "a consummation devoutly to be wished," by large numbers of my scientific peers. "Fiction and Fantasy genres, ahoy!!!!

I suppose this is as good a time as any to air my thoughts on the words/phrases, "irreligious" and the box we are invited to check when we check into the hospital, such as "religion--none." Given the current state of neurogenetics, these phrases are hopelessly out of date. Even people in a coma, it seems, not only can play mental tennis--quite literally--and also "believe" --"ten impossible things before breakfast!!!" "Hardwired" is the commonplace term, borrowed from electronics.

Christopher Hitchens thinks that the world can exist without faith--in fact, he has so much faith in this idea (which is not his, obviously, but reactionary in the broad sense of the word, largely due to abuses of the word by several large "faith communities" -- as well as by their many critics) he had the energy and the sense of purpose to be able to write an entire book on the subject, presuming without reason that his beliefs are Pure Reason and beyond criticism or compromise. In striving to be "objective" he has stumbled early into the same errors that the average intellectual has done throughout history, but more prominently in the "secular city" called the 20th century, which ironically was to be the "Christian Century" (See Flannery's story, "The Enduring Chill")

There is a "Freedom from Religion" clan in Madison WI--I have had a chance to visit their website, which is free--but not very. What is immediately evident is the anger. Most of this is vented at Christians--it would be most interesting to see how they handle The Prophet--and against Christianized trivial pursuit which may be their most helpful "weeding out" function.

It is a small stretch to say that "irreligious" does not mean the impossible i.e. freedom from religion. Only the dead are free from religion, with all their beliefs/opinions swept away in the universal "Ruach."

What the self-designated "irreligious" person is really saying is, "I'm against your religion; and all belief systems but my own personal one." This is hardly objective thinking, it is only wishful thinking, kind of like John Lennon's, "Imagine", one of many examples of art being a biased flight from reality. Lennon's attacks on Christianity in particular are a matter of record and in retrospect are simply well-put prejudices. Dylan's willingness to wait and see and not be nailed down will probably be a more lasting legacy; even though I am not recommending a lack of commitment; by the end of our lives we will be 100% committed, by the way.

I would expect more humility than boasting and "attack religion", and a lot less anger; if objective reality were really the object of our pursuit. What we are really after is the confirmation of our own opinions, which, if you haven't noticed, is the weak point in this, and probably all Blogs. "Let he who boasts, boast in the Lord." "I will boast rather of my infirmities."

MEASURE FOR MEASURE? OR RATHER............

"It is not sufficient to be good and do the right thing. You must have goodness stamped upon your life by the superscription of Jesus Christ. The whole secret of a Christian's character is that the supernatural has been made natural in his life, by the grace of God. The supernatural influences natural human life, not just in granting us secret communion with God; it flows out of us in the practical workings of our daily lives."

"What results do we see? When problems come, to our great astonishment, we have a power we never had before--a power that keeps us wonderfully poised in the midst of it all. And this is because of the supernatural grace of God, working within us and flowing out of us." (think Flo)---From Oswald Chambers

There are many, many things in creation and in human life that defy logical and mathematical analysis. For Miss O'Connor, it was the peacock. For Dr. Kurt Wise, the Harvard-trained paleontologist, it is the trilobite's eye. Yet here they are/were. And although many "Stoics and Epicureans" have their "theories of Everything," none of them are verifiable or even testable; because they are based at least on a single leap of faith, i.e. God is not. Further, that our 5 senses and 3 lb. human brain can assess everything that is relevant to life, "lacking nothing."

It is worthy of note that, if supernatural creation/sustenation is so shaky, why do 40% of scientists still believe in God? Which is the same result obtained in the same study of scientists' opinions studied 100 years ago, and recently repeated. That study was designed to show that belief in God would, as Voltaire predicted, disappear with scientific advances. And that's just the scientists, not counting people like Mortimer Adler, T.S Eliot, and even Norman Mailer and Kurt Vonnegut (while not giving up on their overweening egos and desires to shock and annoy)

If anything, research per se has discovered even more problematical entities, as Einstein implied would happen.

The latest issue of Discover magazine is devoted to things we cannot see or grasp. The most revealing article is the one entitled, "The Streetlight Effect"; which is based on the old joke about the kop on the beat seeing a drunk on his hands and knees under a streetlamp, looking around desperately at the sidewalk."I'm looking for my wallet, offisha!"
"Where did you lose it?" "In the alley over dere." "Why are you looking over here, then?"

"Because the light's so much better over here."

Unpack that!

The author refers mainly to medical research,which we know to be increasingly flawed many times over. But he largely leaves out what we used to call "basic science," as somehow purer and more trustworthy. But to the individual or team looking for either a billion dollar patent, or the others seeking other-esteem or lasting fame, there is little difference to the human psyche. Moreover, the rule still is, "publish or perish," is it not? (By the way, the real way to make yourself famous now is by debunking the work of others-- and it's so much easier than either basic or original research!!!--and fits so well with our Zeitgeist!!!)

The TNY quote I mentioned would fit well here, but time is running out. For the basics I can refer you to Paul's discourse at the Areopagus. There were two reponses:"We want to hear more."; and ridicule. This is the same rather limited variety of responses we see today from those who consider themselves authorities. I always find it interesting that the responses I have observed run a short gamut from studied indifference to ridicule and innuendo esp guilt by association, and from thence very quickly to fiery rage. It is up to the Christian to respond as Paul responded, as Oswald Chambers notes above, and not respond, "measure for measure."

CAMUS' RUBICON

Perhaps before I go any further, I should make the reader aware that I do not necessarily agree with either Howard Mumma or Albert Camus as they are presented here. Part of the reason I am presenting this is to demonstrate how difficult it is to be a Christian in the modern and postmodern world. But why it matters as much as ever. Specific denominational doctrines are not what I am after; but rather the commonalities we inevitably have in Christ once we are joined to Him. The fact that the bulk of this does go beyond religion, politics, art, industry, and so forth I am hoping to make apparent in this blog -- if not already then eventually.

"So even these great men were confused."

Then Camus said, "and I don't understand to this day -- this man Nicodemus!" I was very pleased when he brought up Nicodemus . I got out the Bible and turned to the third chapter of the Gospel of John and we reread it. We discussed it. He said to me, "Now here is a wise man of Israel! He is seeking something that he does not have. I feel right at home with Nicodemus, because I too am uncertain about this whole matter of Christianity. I don't understand what Jesus said to Nicodemus,' You must be born again."'

I said, "Albert, let's think about this expression,' to be born again,' --because we are moving back to the significance of baptism. What was Jesus' reply?"

Immediately Camus said, " Well, you know what it was! He simply said that you must be born again! I know the exact words:' except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God,' --whatever that is. And he said,' that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'.... I simply marvel at it -- that you must be born again."

"To me," I said, "to be born again is to enter anew or afresh into the process of spiritual growth. It is to wipe the slate clean. It is to receive forgiveness. It is to receive forgiveness because you have asked God to forgive you of all past sins, so that the guilt, the concerns, worries, and mistakes that we made in the past are forgiven and the slate is truly wiped clean."

"I don't know what the French term would be for a bond or encumbrance, but the person who accepts forgiveness now believes that there is no mortgage, no encumbrance on him. The slate is clear, your conscience is clear. You are ready to go ahead and commit yourself to a new life, a new spiritual pilgrimage. You are seeking the presence of God himself." I was nervous and intense.

Albert looked at me with tears in his eyes and said, "Howard, I am ready. I want this. This is what I want to commit my life to."

(I would prefer to interject here that the sense of wonder which struck Camus at that time was relatively free of the general and cultural abuse of the term, "born again," which has been rued by no less a figure than Billy Graham, who said, "I am afraid I have preached a gospel of cheap grace." Familiarity does breed contempt especially in cultural terms when a profound truth is thrown to those who both use it and abuse it and make it seem shallow and ridiculous. There are plenty of evangelists in America and plenty of Bibles and plenty of disenchantment and plenty of disconnection between nature and grace. But in point of fact, what Jesus was talking about, both here and in general, is, as Walker Percy said of the Jews, "unsubsumable." The present-day world has no use for genuine mystery in life, but only a jaded taste for amusement, irony, non-Christian skepticism, and fantasy/science fiction. The important thing is -- "He makes me laugh." (My thanks to Jessica Rabbit.) However, to someone of Camus' culture, nationality, and acquaintances, religious and "irreligious", this term "born again" was relatively new because it had fallen into disuse over the centuries, particularly in Europe, among both Protestant and Orthodox/Roman Catholic churches alike and probably to an equal extent. One could speculate endlessly about the problems associated with being a "state church".)

Of course I rejoiced and thanked God privately that he had come to this. I had a difficult time maintaining my composure. The man had been questioning me now for several years about Christianity and attended services. He had heard my sermons on many occasions and had studied the Bible. Perhaps I should not have been shocked, but it did give me a sense of wonder and amazement that he would be considering taking this kind of step toward Christianity. Yet for some reason I was unable to commit myself fully to the idea. "But Albert," but haven't you already been baptized?"

"NO INNOCENT VICTIM"--???

"When we are all guilty, that will be democracy." "But I am different!" said the captured French Jew to the Nazis, "I am innocent!" ( -from Camus)


Does anyone remember "The Man in the Glass Booth"? Wherein the once-captive and subsequently fabulously successful New York Jew takes on the identity of a Nazi on trial for war crimes? It's somewhat of a secular parable that takes up where Twain's "The War Prayer" left off. The audience in both cases dismissed the witness, "because what he said made no sense."

But does claiming our innocence make more sense?

Another "Messianic" Jew from NYC recently said this:

"It would be good.... if he could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly." Guess who?

The point I am trying to make is not especially political but it does cover the political/religious nexus. We have always said that America is not a pure democracy because that would become a populist mobocracy. Perhaps we are not a democracy because we will continue to proclaim our individual and collective innocence! But in actual point of fact, "there is none righteous, no, not one." Which is why the man in the glass booth was unable to make his point, even in fiction. It's also called "denial."

This fits in with the discussion about the Sadducees, who were representatives of aristocracy and oligarchy, which would include Platonic republicanism and, as we will see later the gambits of Pharisaical populism. This is what the current battle over royalty is all about, the ages- old struggle in which Jesus did not take either side. I think it not difficult to imagine that a Divine Source would not be convinced by any human source of radicalism or radical self-righteousness.

The deficiencies of dualistic thinking, to which we are ever consigned, is foundational to the hard sayings of Jesus which most of us still reject as making no sense. Yet does it make sense, that even a hypothetical God of the universe, known and unknown, would make any sense to us? So we are left with little to say, and as Camus points out in his novels, there is really no point in proclaiming our innocence. In this sense, Camus, observationally, confirms the basic assumption of biblical Scripture which really needs little proof. The Sadducee/Pharisee codependency is certainly over-sufficient empirical evidence to put the lie to the hope that we are all, "basically good." If we were, then pure democracy would be actually possible. But as our Jewish friends mentioned or implied in the preceding statements, "You're gonna serve somebody-- it may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but you're gonna serve somebody" ( by that most famous Minnesota Jew) --- notice that Mr. Dylan did not mention serving, "the people." Perhaps the "servant of the people," only exists or makes sense in the Person of Jesus. This is exactly how Isaiah put it hundreds of years before the "Common Era."

But no one has more naivete than the intellectual who is left alone to think his way out of his own glass booth/castle. More on that later with an insightful comment from the latest ish of TNY. (The above quote is from Woody Allen)

as PROMISEd

More on the Sadducees: The Jewish Encyclopedia.com suggest that the root word for the Sadducee is, "Zadduki", meaning a follower of Zadok, the chief priest at the time of David and Solomon; his immediate successors established the Temple hierarchy. This line went all the way through the first and second Temples, but by that time they were so Hellenized, that."to be a follower of the priestly hierarchy was tantamount to being a worldly-minded Epicurean." Only the highest patrician families intermarried with the priests at Jerusalem, and this group was regarded as a "haughty" aristocracy by Josephus and the Pharisees. The Sadducees "have none but the rich on their side."
Also: "They had centered their interests in political life, of which they were the chief rulers...they took the people's destiny in their own hands, fighting or negotiating with the heathen nations just as they thought best, while having as their aim their own temporary welfare and worldly success." (To be sure, they evolved into a rather strict anti-supernaturalism, finding that such an approach favored the pleasure principle and personal and group aggrandizement.)

Yet they favored detailed and literal applications of selected OT portions when it suited their purposes, while some Pharisees interpreted them figuratively, such as Deu 22:17.

Subsequent to the destruction of Herod's temple the Sadducees lost everything but the "Zaddukim" seem to have had spinoffs, such as gnosticism, and dualism of the Manicheans; "So it is said of Adam that he was a Zadduki, that is, a gnostic who did not believe in God as the Giver of the Law."

Tune in tommorrow and we will look at at least one contemporary representative of this group--names change but the format of convenient formalism--and populism--remain steadily in place; Caiphas was correct in his prophecy that his group would lose "both their place and their nation" if Jesus of Nazareth were allowed to live. "It is expedient that one man should die for the people." Or rather than the welfare of the people they lost their pleomorphic leadership and the hegemony of the oligarchy. If they believed in anything, it was their absolute rights to rule
and reign--having had certainly the most practice time!

Does "practice make perfect"? Let's see....

For the 100th time, I said:

Observations on a damp hospital lawn:

I am on call and was going to the big house when I espied a "men's group" of three mallards hanging out by Dr. Taylor's office. (Accountability meeting of my most favoritest of all birds?)

About an hour later I came back and the ducks were gone. But on the nearby sidewalk was the gutted shell of a brazil nut.

My first reaction was that of any good dog, to wit: SQUIRREL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then I thought, what about the duck team? Couldn't they have....

Third thought: No, they couldn't possibly quack it.....


"Sorry...sorry... I just get carried away......." --Cleesey Launcelot

"THE POSSESSED"

I have been doing a word study from the Jewish Encyclopedia which I will share hopefully later today. But by way of introduction, I would like to consider the pejorative word, "reactionary."

It is supposed to be a law of physics that, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Since our acts and our thoughts are necessarily lodged in the physical body, it is small wonder that we cannot escape this law. The sense of this law would lead to the Greek philosophy of, "Prime Mover." I am of course being reactionary here; but my point is that we are all inherently reactionary in almost every aspect of our being. I recall thinking I was quite the original thinker and poet when I was in college. When a fellow student pointed out that I was like thousands of other people at the time, I was of course insulted. However, the thought that, You are nothing special, does not necessarily or logically follow, and of course my critical friend had only one motive for pointing out my lack of originality in my pride, which was of course to exalt his own superior position; largely the result of his high flow of testosterone coming against mine. Nobody won the fight of course but I am grateful for what turns out to be a useful correction.

Therefore, to use the word "reactionary" to describe opponents is highly suspect, as much so as in the example above. Criticism and putdowns are all of course reactionary and would not exist without some perceived offense/action, which is also derivative. But I'm not here suggesting physical reductionism or metaphysical slavery to the past. But as the "default mode," it is virtually ubiquitous; and especially noxious when exhibited by people who are convicted by their own convictions, which is invariable when we are not convicted by the Holy Spirit, that is, the Prime Mover who actually hovered over the waters not so long ago to bring order out of the chaotic primordial soup if you will. I might refer here to Teilhard du Chardin, which was the default mode for Flannery O'Connor later in her life, also studied intensely by me during my latter years in Shimer College. Of course his philosophy is a binary reaction to the Bible and to Darwin both and I would rather concentrate on the Original,at least today, rather than the multitudinous ripple effects of Creation and Imitation.

Philosophy and metaphysics, like religion and politics, are almost totally reactionary, if not to God Himself, then to the idea of God/Prime Mover. There is the distinct possibility that some of us have never had an original thought in our entire existence -- and are content if not happy with that. The real answer to the question however I have to defer to someone with real authority and real knowledge, not myself and my biased opinion. I used to try very hard to be original, but I have retreated to the point where I had to settle with being unique, at least statistically and genetically but I would also say supernaturally in ways beyond human understanding.

What I'm getting at is that the current political and religious debates are not any different than they were in the time of the Greeks and the original Hebrews, that none of them, socially, politically, or spiritually have been solved in the least. Our technology is at best an extension of our five extremely limited senses. We probably have more than five, but there is no way to nail that down because of our physical limitations. And those who proclaim Reason, or Science, as some type of "new" Absolute or new gods or Omega point also have to contend with Dr. Freud's assertion that rationalism and intellectualization are predominantly defense mechanisms, used primarily by those who consider themselves superior to the rest of us. That would include Freud himself of course, whichhe may have discovered during his own psychoanalysis. Again we have loads of reaction, but nothing original at all. This also gets back to the dilemma of Sartre, Camus, and the influence of church history on both of them. Absurdist and existentialist thought is also a reaction to an excessive and unhealthy Rationalism/Scientism of the Enlightenment which proved its vast limitations almost from its inception. UnHoly Terror!!! So we are really most inclusive in our thought when we use the word, "reactionary." And yet we use it to dishonor our opponents when we use a reaction itself to form criticisms that are in no way original to us.

More later. Meantime, meditate on this reaction to Jesus Christ: "This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?"
Why so?

Keziah Korner, mit Katzen Krazee

Quote too good not to share:

Keziah, my granddaughter, not quite age 3:

Mom/Grace: "What are you doing Keziah?" K: "I'm building a house."

"Who is going to live in it?"

"Um..Gerard Manley Hopkins and his cow."






Steve/Poppa Schuler:" 'Skies of couple-colour, as a brinded cow..." for those of you not familiar with the line."

The glory of God indeed manifests itself through dappled things--one would want to add calico cats too.