Drum/Clap/Drum/Clap/Drum/Clap/one,two.one,two.one,two
Pick..p'ck a p'ck,Pick..p'ck a p'ck,Pick..p'ck a p'ck,
"Well its nobody's fault but mine...
If I should die, my soul be lost. It's nobody's fault but mine
I got a bible in my home...
If I should die, my soul be lost. It's nobody's fault but mine
My mother taught me how to read...
She told me If I should die, my soul be lost. It's nobody's fault but mine
Ohhh my Lord, Oh my Lord!
My sister taught me how to pray...
She told me If I should die, my soul be lost... it's nobody's fault but mine
Nobody's fault but mine...
If I should die, my soul be lost. It's nobody's fault but mine
If I should die in my sleep, and I get left behind. My soul be lost... it's nobody's fault but mine."
Nobody's fault -The Dixie Hummingbirds
In all the candid clarity supplied by a gospel harmony grown in Baptist Churches... This gem of truth landed in my ear whilst driving, listening, meditating on my own salvation.
My own salvation. How dear it is to me, to know that no force of hell, no scheme of the devil, no vice in the world of men will remove my call to priestly ordinance, or shame me out of my savior's loving gaze! (1 Peter 2:9, Hebrews 7:25)
My thoughts then turned to the years before this truth was manifested in my life. My knowledge of the Most High was incomplete. Having yet to surrender, I sat and observed... and I see it now vividly:
Sitting at the bar with peers, watching them laugh and love as best they could, jesting luridly and calling out to one another some witticism or other that might draw the satisfaction of a hoot or holler. What a bland taste it left too! There was nothing but death at that table. Meanwhile, all I could think about was what I knew and they did not. Whilst I would not yet act on it, I saw the depravity, and felt, in my core, the reality which can draw a soul to a savior. The unabashed sin was thriving and I could see how a mighty God might wince in disgust, that our meager race would run away from Him... And for what?! A few drinks and laughs. Tender romantic efforts to fill the loneliness of our divine nature. Or worse yet, a laughing disregard that any trapping of divinity might afford some valid peace in a world of turmoil we mocked up as one of tranquility. We were the fools of Shakespeare, but we thought the play was just a play, when the real tragedy was our own fallen world.
And then I sighed, the dichotomy fills me with apprehension. It was one thing when I knew what I knew and did not swear fealty, when I was not born again I had no right, nor any cause to relate to my fellows the travesty of their brokenness. But now?
There are many of my faith that cast doubts on the proper course of action here. I will leave them unnamed but I will not bestow such a mercy on the lies they spit out as vipers in our midst.
1) The act of the evangelical is a gifting for some, not for all
2) 'Living' my faith is sufficient witness of our Savior
AND the lies with which they poison their own thought-life
3) I simply must wait for the opportunity to share Christ
4) There are circles of society in my life which pose too great a risk to my relationships within them to risk being outspoken in my faith
5) Any attempt to share the good news is better left to prayer and intercession, acting may only push them away.
All of the above are lies only because of the absolute conclusions we may draw from them. They don't encourage us to proclaim good news, rather they inspire us to keep a good secret! That my dear reader, is where my apprehension lies, why at one time I could keep a good secret that I did not yet accept as truth myself, and why later, my heart would fill with guilt at my own apathy as I drove...
Which brings us back to the emerald lyrics above: We have the source of such knowledge ( the bible). Furthermore, we have been taught the skills by which to comprehend and exercise this knowledge by those who already know (sisters and mothers). Never forgetting that with these means to eternal life the responsibility now lays with us as to obtaining our salvation (It's nobody's fault but mine)! What then will we say about the teachers? Were they not a great deal necessary in leading us onto the roadway to righteousness? Would we likely be standing in faith today were it not for hands drawing us forward unto the dawn of a new life in Christ? Hardly! We give glory unto the Father for sending those that instructed us! I do not here intend to disenfranchise the Spirit that did the saving, any more than the hearty evangelicals just mentioned would claim credit for our salvation. No, we give ALL glory to God for the son that drew us near, and I acknowledge that should God design to save a man, he need not use other men to do it. Nonetheless, we have a purpose to fill as we march into our inheritance. It is my great fear that this purpose is altogether overlooked when we rush past this pillar of the faith to get into the temple of the almighty. If we are to build in our communities of faith, we cannot ignore this structural element anymore than the cornerstone that guides the construction.
But we all to often do just this. We have not made the Gospel our own proclamation! I do not call you to go to street corners and take a sign, I do not expect you to call a work meeting and set the story straight. I call you to look at the world as though you have something to inform it of, rather than just as a waiting room before eternity!
We all have the news to proclaim, the realms of our impact differ, the fact we must make an impact as a testament to our salvation is imperative! Setting good examples does nothing but prove goodness if Christ is not proclaimed all the while! Opportunity is just as often found when it is sought, not when it is waited for idly! Let us end these excuses and in prayer seek out those who so cannot see the dire straights of their existence
So then, will I let my fellow man, lost in the darkness, live free of the evangelical in me? God help me, I say NO!
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
On Potter, Twilight, and the rest of the lot...
It is sadly apparent that Lewis and his creative tall tales have been taken as an open license to endorse any canon that has the remotest semblance to THE redemptive retelling of Christ. What we produce is a slew of coffeehouse college-age theologians with nothing better to do than to attempt to justify their wanting library of literature as valuable in the eyes of faith, DESPITE it's atrociously glaring deficiencies and contradictions to explicit doctrine.
SO, when your soft-hearted child is endorsing things that are contrary to ideal faith, you can thank people who prefer good story telling over wisdom's scrutiny. You can see where your deficiency of caution has opened the flood-gates of near blasphemy; because we are so desperate for entertainment, we'll make room for it in the meeting halls of our churches and cathedrals, then stare quizzically out the doorways wondering why we seem just so similar to those strolling happily by.
In sum, what you put in, is what you get out. At least acknowledge the contrary aspects of what you watch and read, instead of salving the burn left by personal entertainment choices that make obvious the tragedy of spiritual dichotomy in your life. The sad part is, many of us are so dulled by popular culture, we don't even see the contradictions, and so, all I have just written is of little or no consequence to you.
(In an effort to add the context you've lacked in the former paragraphs, I'll add the following:
We're using Harry Potter to explain Christian Doctrine, but the law of affiliation demands that Potter and his canon be at least somewhat justified in any contradictions to Biblical models. All this to say, the use of witchcraft and wizardry, the fantastic intertwining of the powers for good and evil, and the impossible righteousness of one group of men over another: all these things must be justified before we throw them into the Christian thought-life as examples of godliness. It can't be done, so we should throw it out. Instead, we elevate Potter to the level of a Christ figure, we glorify sorcery as make-believe fun, which if you think that, you may as well explain away the Holy Spirit.
I don't intend to demand all Rowling's good writing be burned, I am not in the business of book burning, though there are a good number that should be burned. What I am disturbed by is the lazy theologians of our age using ungodly tools to explain Christian Doctrine, with not a caveat to be found that even begins to acknowledge dichotomy exists between the world of magic and the spiritual reality of our faith. At least adding a mention here and there pointing out discrepancies would be encouraging. ANY Proof that someone has done some critical thinking about the mess of these horribly wanting examples would be of some comfort. If you find these tales so worth your time to be placed in your biblical message, at least draw a line in the sand as to where the stories match redemption and where they part ways.)
By this point, having come out and named names, you're probably all in a huff over my belligerent ignorance. How dare I suggest that your opinion is unthoughtful and your use of these models in your theological thought-life very near heretical? But I beg you, dear reader, give me the benefit of the doubt! Please consider our savage and fleshly nature before you run off in a mental tiff. Think on where God stands and where the content of these tales stand. I don't want you to reject a 'good read' outright, but I think the Spirit in you might be pleased that you can discern between things of darkness and things of light as you read.
I'll leave you with this final thought: John 1:5, "The light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it." Tell me then, in a world where forces for good and evil both cast spells with whimsical wands, wielding powers drawn from the same source... which is light and which is darkness? Potter too, can whisper the wicked words avada kedavra. The whole premise of fantastical novels is that magic is neutral. But we know that light and dark, good and evil, must be distinct from one another. "Truly, God doesn't practice wickedness and the Almighty doesn't pervert Justice" (Job 34:12) Light and darkness only coexist easily in Eastern worldviews. Such a premise is ill suited to a Christian one. To argue otherwise is to bite off more than you can chew.
Monday, January 7, 2013
"The Clockwork Universe"
I stumbled across this thought while reading about Sir Isaac Newton and the Royal Society: The Clockwork Universe, by Edward Dolnick. It is an engaging historical review of the seventeenth century, and the minds which forever shaped the world we now live in.
First, I should let those of you reading this in on a little secret: In my own sensibility, a well structured and clever title, is as commendable as any number of more commonplace achievements. In fact, I find myself, as a past-time, titling my opinions and reflections before they're fully written or formed. Even mix Cd's are not spared the scrutiny. A book may very well be forgiven it's cover. But it's title, is more than a face, it is the first step taken in its journey with the audience. Alas, we'll suffice it to say that the further I embark on my journey with the topics surveyed in "The Clockwork Universe" by Mr. Edward Dolnick, the more i grin at his decision in the naming of his summary.
Indeed, Clockwork, we'll call it, has outdone itself in two facets of the historical realm. First, its anecdotes are succinct and memorable, due in large part to it's plucking of tales from the numerous and intriguing figures of the era it covers. Secondly, Dolnick's effort to introduce real-time "clockwork" perspectives into our culture of thought (long departed from what I consider it's more noble roots), are tangible and thus far, as neutral as any to be found in contemporary authorship. So neutral in fact, that not knowing a thing about the author's philosophy, one might venture to guess that his lack of vehemence in treating the religious facets of this era is akin to proclaiming his own agnosticism. (I'm sure that's not the case but readers have a habit of longing for the authors they enjoy to fall in line with them on all the beliefs they hold as foundationally true.) I for one won't trip up on that desire. Mr Dolnick seems a good enough sort of man but let's get to the meat of the issue:
Chapter Twenty: The Parade of the Horribles, page 27: (I've added emphasis to bring out a couple items of note)
"Two centuries passed between Newton's theory of gravity and Darwin's theory of evolution. How could that be? Newton's work bristled with mathematics and focused on remote, unfamiliar objects like planets and comets. Darwin's theory of evolution dealt in ordinary words with ordinary things like pigeons and barnacles. "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!" Thomas Huxley famously grumbled after first reading Darwin's Origin of Species.No one ever scolded himself for not beating Newton to the Princpia.
The "easier" theory proved harder to find because it required abandoning the idea of God the designer. Newton and his contemporaries never for a moment considered rejecting the notion of design. The premise at the heart of evolution is that living creatures have inborn random differences; some of those random variations happen to provide an advantage in the struggle for life, and nature favors those variations. That focus on randomness was unthinkable in the seventeenth century...
Newton blinded by his faith in intelligent design, argued in the same vein. In a world where randomness was a possibility he scoffed, we'd be beset with every variety of jury-rigged, misshapen creature...
...Two related beliefs helped rule out any possibility of a seventeenth-century Darwin. The first was the assumption that every feature of the world had been put there for man's benefit,....
...The second assumption that blinded Newton and his contemporaries to evolution was the idea that the universe was almost brand-new. The Bible put creation at a mere six thousand years in the past. Even if someone had conceived of a evolving natural world, that tiny span of time would not have offered enough elbow room...
Two hundred years later, scientists still clung to the same idea. In the words of Louis Agassiz, Darwin's great Victorian rival, each species was a thought of God.
Let's be clear, this is the first time the subject of Evolution has been given any real stage in the text. 128 pages into a sub 400 page book. But when it is introduced I noted some sad and wonderful things.
Foremost is the acknowledgment that all conclusions are a production not only of data but the presuppositions with which data is interpreted. (I am not a scientist, I find the trials and challenges of such topics dull and uninviting.) I would venture to guess that those who study evidence, for that is what all science is in its most basic sense,are aware of the suppositions which accompany them into a review of the pertinent data. In fact, I should say it is those suppositions which in part assist in guessing exactly what data is pertinent to the given inquiry.
The author notes this remarkable trip in the assumptions of a given theory. I only desire to make one distinction: God and a rational worldview of evolution are incongruent entities. You cannot have your God and have evolved too.
Now the more astute of you will be blubbering to yourselves perhaps that I have overlooked the very statements I emphasized "How dare he! There it is, plain as day, you can't have God the designer, but still a man might have his God!" furthermore you exclaim "It was Newton's reliance on intelligent design which might have hung him up; but surely his faith could overcome such ancient and foolhardy notions of the Divine!"
Suffice it to say, the thought had crossed my mind. It was I am glad to say, promptly followed by a second thought: what sort of god would this non-designing, mythic tale-telling god be? Not much of a god I should say. Now I could waste my breath pointing out conclusions, endorsements and overall common-sense (those of you who read the book would chuckle at that last bit) of leaving God where he belongs, rather than choking down some new take on an old mystery which comes out different with any presupposition. But I won't. The fact of the matter is Newton and his contemporaries were infallibly correct in leading their investigations by the light of consistent suppositions about the world they lived in. Without those blinders, they very well may have ended up doing nothing worth noting at all. Especially when one considers the motive of the Royal Society was at it's root, to explore the world in search of convicting evidence of the Almighty's handiwork.
Through the lens of their faith they did just that. I bemoan that men whose overbearing worldview was so agreeable to me have long since left our forums of thought and science. I grant you their characters and suppositions had some failings that ultimately would facilitate our current disillusionment with all things Faith. But I wonder if I wouldn't consider all the failings of their presumptions a small trouble in comparison with my current setting. A world so filled with prideful arrogance, so determined to aim it's arsenal against a genuinely awe inspiring Creator, that it would make up a Multi-verse, rather than allow it's ambitions, it's comprehension, and it's accomplishments to be aimed by His will.
Perhaps one day I'll trouble you with a long and comma riddled explanation of those faults in presumption. (Hint, they hinge upon the first anti-Darwinian supposition , mentioned in the above quote.) Until then, think for yourself.. But do remember, should you be a doubter: that God could care less for, and exist regardless of, your opinion of His existence, or what you might think of His relevance in your life. I'm sorry to break that to you.
First, I should let those of you reading this in on a little secret: In my own sensibility, a well structured and clever title, is as commendable as any number of more commonplace achievements. In fact, I find myself, as a past-time, titling my opinions and reflections before they're fully written or formed. Even mix Cd's are not spared the scrutiny. A book may very well be forgiven it's cover. But it's title, is more than a face, it is the first step taken in its journey with the audience. Alas, we'll suffice it to say that the further I embark on my journey with the topics surveyed in "The Clockwork Universe" by Mr. Edward Dolnick, the more i grin at his decision in the naming of his summary.
Indeed, Clockwork, we'll call it, has outdone itself in two facets of the historical realm. First, its anecdotes are succinct and memorable, due in large part to it's plucking of tales from the numerous and intriguing figures of the era it covers. Secondly, Dolnick's effort to introduce real-time "clockwork" perspectives into our culture of thought (long departed from what I consider it's more noble roots), are tangible and thus far, as neutral as any to be found in contemporary authorship. So neutral in fact, that not knowing a thing about the author's philosophy, one might venture to guess that his lack of vehemence in treating the religious facets of this era is akin to proclaiming his own agnosticism. (I'm sure that's not the case but readers have a habit of longing for the authors they enjoy to fall in line with them on all the beliefs they hold as foundationally true.) I for one won't trip up on that desire. Mr Dolnick seems a good enough sort of man but let's get to the meat of the issue:
Chapter Twenty: The Parade of the Horribles, page 27: (I've added emphasis to bring out a couple items of note)
"Two centuries passed between Newton's theory of gravity and Darwin's theory of evolution. How could that be? Newton's work bristled with mathematics and focused on remote, unfamiliar objects like planets and comets. Darwin's theory of evolution dealt in ordinary words with ordinary things like pigeons and barnacles. "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!" Thomas Huxley famously grumbled after first reading Darwin's Origin of Species.No one ever scolded himself for not beating Newton to the Princpia.
The "easier" theory proved harder to find because it required abandoning the idea of God the designer. Newton and his contemporaries never for a moment considered rejecting the notion of design. The premise at the heart of evolution is that living creatures have inborn random differences; some of those random variations happen to provide an advantage in the struggle for life, and nature favors those variations. That focus on randomness was unthinkable in the seventeenth century...
Newton blinded by his faith in intelligent design, argued in the same vein. In a world where randomness was a possibility he scoffed, we'd be beset with every variety of jury-rigged, misshapen creature...
...Two related beliefs helped rule out any possibility of a seventeenth-century Darwin. The first was the assumption that every feature of the world had been put there for man's benefit,....
...The second assumption that blinded Newton and his contemporaries to evolution was the idea that the universe was almost brand-new. The Bible put creation at a mere six thousand years in the past. Even if someone had conceived of a evolving natural world, that tiny span of time would not have offered enough elbow room...
Two hundred years later, scientists still clung to the same idea. In the words of Louis Agassiz, Darwin's great Victorian rival, each species was a thought of God.
Let's be clear, this is the first time the subject of Evolution has been given any real stage in the text. 128 pages into a sub 400 page book. But when it is introduced I noted some sad and wonderful things.
Foremost is the acknowledgment that all conclusions are a production not only of data but the presuppositions with which data is interpreted. (I am not a scientist, I find the trials and challenges of such topics dull and uninviting.) I would venture to guess that those who study evidence, for that is what all science is in its most basic sense,are aware of the suppositions which accompany them into a review of the pertinent data. In fact, I should say it is those suppositions which in part assist in guessing exactly what data is pertinent to the given inquiry.
The author notes this remarkable trip in the assumptions of a given theory. I only desire to make one distinction: God and a rational worldview of evolution are incongruent entities. You cannot have your God and have evolved too.
Now the more astute of you will be blubbering to yourselves perhaps that I have overlooked the very statements I emphasized "How dare he! There it is, plain as day, you can't have God the designer, but still a man might have his God!" furthermore you exclaim "It was Newton's reliance on intelligent design which might have hung him up; but surely his faith could overcome such ancient and foolhardy notions of the Divine!"
Suffice it to say, the thought had crossed my mind. It was I am glad to say, promptly followed by a second thought: what sort of god would this non-designing, mythic tale-telling god be? Not much of a god I should say. Now I could waste my breath pointing out conclusions, endorsements and overall common-sense (those of you who read the book would chuckle at that last bit) of leaving God where he belongs, rather than choking down some new take on an old mystery which comes out different with any presupposition. But I won't. The fact of the matter is Newton and his contemporaries were infallibly correct in leading their investigations by the light of consistent suppositions about the world they lived in. Without those blinders, they very well may have ended up doing nothing worth noting at all. Especially when one considers the motive of the Royal Society was at it's root, to explore the world in search of convicting evidence of the Almighty's handiwork.
Through the lens of their faith they did just that. I bemoan that men whose overbearing worldview was so agreeable to me have long since left our forums of thought and science. I grant you their characters and suppositions had some failings that ultimately would facilitate our current disillusionment with all things Faith. But I wonder if I wouldn't consider all the failings of their presumptions a small trouble in comparison with my current setting. A world so filled with prideful arrogance, so determined to aim it's arsenal against a genuinely awe inspiring Creator, that it would make up a Multi-verse, rather than allow it's ambitions, it's comprehension, and it's accomplishments to be aimed by His will.
Perhaps one day I'll trouble you with a long and comma riddled explanation of those faults in presumption. (Hint, they hinge upon the first anti-Darwinian supposition , mentioned in the above quote.) Until then, think for yourself.. But do remember, should you be a doubter: that God could care less for, and exist regardless of, your opinion of His existence, or what you might think of His relevance in your life. I'm sorry to break that to you.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
On writing cruelly, and carefully
In reflecting on my Sister complaining that I argue too spitefully in proving my points to others. That if I would simply back down a bit and work people through my points I might be better received, I realize that in some of my more vicious ridicule, lies a selfish goal.
You see, if there's one thing I've noticed (and this ties back to my first impressions mentality) it's that those that write, earn followers. And those followers in my opinion, and a most backwards argument it is, reflect upon the authors they endorse. Take my Uncle R for example. My most vivid memories of him are discussing the virtues of Lee Strobel's book while at a thanksgiving reunion. Now, I know this shouldn't be the case. But since that time, I've seen my Uncle R make some pretty silly statements on anything from politics, to economics. Brothers in Christ we may be, but I think my Uncle R a slippery buffoon. He makes one ungodly comment or criticism one second, and when I confront him he jumps behind the grace of the Cross the very next! Most slippery indeed. I don't care for his mindset one bit. And frankly, if men of that mind are in favor of Mr. Strobel, how can I be? For one, I'm clearly missing something if someone so disagreeable agrees with that writer, and for another, my support of the author better be carefully thought out, for I am, in a sense affiliating myself with a man I categorically disagree with issue after issue. My beloved Uncle R, that is. Now there is always a chance I can disagree with beloved Uncle R, and support Mr. Strobel's authorship, but the above should be sufficient to introduce the fears I have as a writer.
What sort of people will agree with me? Will they contort my words, or usurp the Truth I proclaim in some slant of unstable mind? Will they lambaste others I would love in some severe conviction that isn't even close to what I intended? I already have seen the ambiguity of my thoughts in the general populace. I can assault the Red Republicans with my satisfaction that their god: The Elephant has lost again due to the will of the Almighty, and bring out their hardness of heart to boot! Next thing you know I have believers who would agree with me, applauding next to the atheists who mistake my fire for a loathing of hard religion. Dear reader, you'll find no harder religion than mine, I look in the mirror to find myself short of that standard each and every day! Yet the risk lies entirely in how I word what I write. Will I have loathsome atheists finding virtue when their eyes are blinded to the Truth to begin with? Or more worrisome, will I find weak-kneed believers with big barks, using me to support their ridiculous vendettas against the world system? Oh the odds! They are against me.
So I write as I do, in part, to scare you, dear reader. I write in a way that burns you, (or I do promise to try) in a way that spurs you away from me. You are wrong, I am right, you can't fathom, but i can, it's the virtue of absolutism, for the sake of argument but moreso for the precious sake of keeping you in line! Please don't do me a disservice, if you are thinking my thought worth reciting, worth living out in your life, let it be balanced in reason and tested in Spirit. As James, says, speak little (feel free to not speak at all, many men would rise out of foolishness if they did) and listen all the more. In this you might do me a small favor, of not tainting my thoughts put to paper, with foul action in the world. For this will cause my credibility to crumble, or at least I fear it might.
Come to think of it. I find the entire enterprise of a man using his desire to prove God a fraudulent one, when the sleuth is a journalist (and you'll forgive me this bias). A journalist! The greatest of intellectuals those of journalism... no not at all. He has no science, he got, by God's great grace, theology. But he panders to men of Uncle R's mentality. Men who take what they are fed in the great eatery of ideas because it is agreeable to their current worldview. I reject this lazy approach to all views both great and small!
Let every thought, every motive, every belief, be scorned until it's veracity is revealed. For only in revelation is reason pure, wholly unadulterated if you will. Understanding, apart from faith is an edifice to the curse of Sin. Faith without understanding however, may suitable for some. But I pray they won't be amongst my audience, lest they be lead astray. Here's to you, reader, may you think hard and do it on your own merit, may you keep far from being one of the Uncle Rs of my written ventures.
Cheers,
An overly confident and self righteous jerk
(my sister made me add that, you've been warned it would seem)
You see, if there's one thing I've noticed (and this ties back to my first impressions mentality) it's that those that write, earn followers. And those followers in my opinion, and a most backwards argument it is, reflect upon the authors they endorse. Take my Uncle R for example. My most vivid memories of him are discussing the virtues of Lee Strobel's book while at a thanksgiving reunion. Now, I know this shouldn't be the case. But since that time, I've seen my Uncle R make some pretty silly statements on anything from politics, to economics. Brothers in Christ we may be, but I think my Uncle R a slippery buffoon. He makes one ungodly comment or criticism one second, and when I confront him he jumps behind the grace of the Cross the very next! Most slippery indeed. I don't care for his mindset one bit. And frankly, if men of that mind are in favor of Mr. Strobel, how can I be? For one, I'm clearly missing something if someone so disagreeable agrees with that writer, and for another, my support of the author better be carefully thought out, for I am, in a sense affiliating myself with a man I categorically disagree with issue after issue. My beloved Uncle R, that is. Now there is always a chance I can disagree with beloved Uncle R, and support Mr. Strobel's authorship, but the above should be sufficient to introduce the fears I have as a writer.
What sort of people will agree with me? Will they contort my words, or usurp the Truth I proclaim in some slant of unstable mind? Will they lambaste others I would love in some severe conviction that isn't even close to what I intended? I already have seen the ambiguity of my thoughts in the general populace. I can assault the Red Republicans with my satisfaction that their god: The Elephant has lost again due to the will of the Almighty, and bring out their hardness of heart to boot! Next thing you know I have believers who would agree with me, applauding next to the atheists who mistake my fire for a loathing of hard religion. Dear reader, you'll find no harder religion than mine, I look in the mirror to find myself short of that standard each and every day! Yet the risk lies entirely in how I word what I write. Will I have loathsome atheists finding virtue when their eyes are blinded to the Truth to begin with? Or more worrisome, will I find weak-kneed believers with big barks, using me to support their ridiculous vendettas against the world system? Oh the odds! They are against me.
So I write as I do, in part, to scare you, dear reader. I write in a way that burns you, (or I do promise to try) in a way that spurs you away from me. You are wrong, I am right, you can't fathom, but i can, it's the virtue of absolutism, for the sake of argument but moreso for the precious sake of keeping you in line! Please don't do me a disservice, if you are thinking my thought worth reciting, worth living out in your life, let it be balanced in reason and tested in Spirit. As James, says, speak little (feel free to not speak at all, many men would rise out of foolishness if they did) and listen all the more. In this you might do me a small favor, of not tainting my thoughts put to paper, with foul action in the world. For this will cause my credibility to crumble, or at least I fear it might.
Come to think of it. I find the entire enterprise of a man using his desire to prove God a fraudulent one, when the sleuth is a journalist (and you'll forgive me this bias). A journalist! The greatest of intellectuals those of journalism... no not at all. He has no science, he got, by God's great grace, theology. But he panders to men of Uncle R's mentality. Men who take what they are fed in the great eatery of ideas because it is agreeable to their current worldview. I reject this lazy approach to all views both great and small!
Let every thought, every motive, every belief, be scorned until it's veracity is revealed. For only in revelation is reason pure, wholly unadulterated if you will. Understanding, apart from faith is an edifice to the curse of Sin. Faith without understanding however, may suitable for some. But I pray they won't be amongst my audience, lest they be lead astray. Here's to you, reader, may you think hard and do it on your own merit, may you keep far from being one of the Uncle Rs of my written ventures.
Cheers,
An overly confident and self righteous jerk
(my sister made me add that, you've been warned it would seem)
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Realizing Jesus
Twenty four days before that Holy day we recall our Savior’s
birth, in the Year of our Lord Two-thousand and Twelve.
“Christ died for me”
Reconcile yourself to this fact and the Truth that is the
witness of the Holy Spirit will shine within the core of your very being. You
will at once be wholly and completely aware of that perfect and undeserved
sacrifice of a Lord unlike all lords we have ever known. Brother, Patriot, King,
Jesus.
Oh that this could be shouted from roof tops!
And that it might echo in the hollow husks of mortal men!
But such is the terminal of a spiritual life. We are given
revelation. It is our response that ensures we are grafted into the vine, that
we might produce fruit in the kingdom and commune more fully with the Most High.
I have been saved nearly three years. Yet my submission was
categorically unfilled until the realization of the above statement hit me as a
brick. I sit sobbing, joyously aware of the new man in me, bought at the cost
of the most precious lamb… Oh how could it be?! That I, a sinner, should draw
His notice? It is inconceivable that my God should love me as he does. And I am
crippled in my awe. Words do this no justice. But it is essential that this
revelation be brought to our heart’s door. That our verbal proclamation,
coupled with sincere belief be cemented in directly impressed revelation.
Before that moment I was a stolid man-at-arms, still loyal to the point of
fanaticism, but missing something. Now, now my past fealty seems heartless. No
less sincere but all the more necessary. That unmistakable reflex to my
commitment. That beauteous claim to the Cross that was wrought by the necessity
of my lack of consequence to an almighty God (that is to say my inferiority in
light of His power) has transformed into a sweeter promise. A crippling
reliance on Him. Not in the petty theology that confirms my compliance was
ordained; that the elect have their destinies. Not in the now hollow oaths of a
transaction betwixt Savior and saved. It is reliance
awash in Love. Wholly undeserving
Love. Now I see no longer a transaction. I know my Savior not as an
instrument of justification. He died for me! Sweet Christ that it
had to be, this way. That my sweet Lord would pass in front of the righteous
wrath before me is beyond comprehension. Yet, I find myself finally weeping in
the realization of that unchangeable Truth.
Christ died for you, too.
Christ died for you, too.
Find a closet, set yourself apart, and ask that it be shown
to you in all its daunting glory. I pray you won’t shy from it for long! You
find in this revelation, a liberty beyond expression!
Oh! For love of country!
Oh for love of country!
Great siren of our times
In yesteryear her calls for duty
Drew thralls into straight lines
Oh for love of country!
We made her so much more
When Church then state each matured
We made them into whores
For God no longer hears
The worship of the masses
They have made the better praises
For Elephants and Asses
Oh for love of country!
Man thought to make her holy
But History tells a different tale
As Man’s schemes all grow moldy
Now only Love of country
Can save us from tomorrow
And if God cares
For I think he might
He’s weeping tears of sorrow
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
With regards to the presidential election results, this 6th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 2012:
I am pleased with the nomination. May the God of my fathers guide his administration to
His purposes, and may this be an opportunity to crack the hardened hearts of every misguided patriot, who cast a ballot for 'values' over genuine faith, For financial security over God ordained penalty, and for pharisaical smugness over the virtue of empathy. I pray this be a blister on the conscience of the church, that they might look at the core of their bias, and see the utter depravity of their efforts. They have sold out for a war they were never supposed to fight, and they have been defeated yet again.
Providence moves us forward friends, how will you choose to react?
- JW
11/7/2012
The cause of the evangelical politic is just, yet the very fact they attempted such an effort was the cause of our social unraveling. Fools. Every last one of them fools and failed followers, but alas, such was His plan as I've no doubt we will begin to see from the most vivid station of hindsight!
Hindsight bites, y'know?
I am pleased with the nomination. May the God of my fathers guide his administration to
His purposes, and may this be an opportunity to crack the hardened hearts of every misguided patriot, who cast a ballot for 'values' over genuine faith, For financial security over God ordained penalty, and for pharisaical smugness over the virtue of empathy. I pray this be a blister on the conscience of the church, that they might look at the core of their bias, and see the utter depravity of their efforts. They have sold out for a war they were never supposed to fight, and they have been defeated yet again.
Providence moves us forward friends, how will you choose to react?
- JW
11/7/2012
The cause of the evangelical politic is just, yet the very fact they attempted such an effort was the cause of our social unraveling. Fools. Every last one of them fools and failed followers, but alas, such was His plan as I've no doubt we will begin to see from the most vivid station of hindsight!
Hindsight bites, y'know?
-JW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)