I was recently advised by a friend that "Ah, but sometimes the heart is the only wise voice we have."
This is my response:
The heart has its place to speak indeed, but as an adviser speaks to his executive- having no authority beyond his opinion and tasked to command others with a message not his own. Lewis states the need to tame the heart this way: "Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism. I had sooner play cards against a man who was quite sceptical about ethics, but bred to believe that 'a gentleman does not cheat', than against an irreproachable moral philosopher who had been brought up among sharpers." I agree entirely. We are angry with restriction of 'personal rights', discrimination, genocide, even while we teach our students that morality is personal. We either completely destroy or over empower the function of the heart and then wonder where the gentlemen have gone. "We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
The wisest Man to ever live once begged, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me," His heart urged against His purpose, set against Him to upset His will and yet He continues, "nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." What a hopeless world it should be if the heart had won that round against the mind.
And twice at least Peter let his heart take hold of him: first, in his anger at Jesus' prediction of His death, blaspheming against Jesus' purpose; and then again, this time his heart taken by fear, Peter overthrew his mind, denying Jesus three times to the woman.
Our hearts have the capacity for ambivalence but are in complete obedience to our minds. If we do not fix our intellects upon a constant, eternal, unchanging standard of Reason we shall have no end to hearts that are not only desperately wicked, but are without a master. Hitler was just a man whose mind was determined that atheism was true, and thus left without morality his heart was free to wander to where it would. Unless we ourselves set our minds upon Divine Truth we shall have no base from which to denounce men whose hearts tell them that blacks are slaves, Muslims are dangerous and that Jews are inferior. Feelings are extremely personal but they conform or fail to conform to a meta-personal Reality that demands certain responses. Therefore the products of the heart are not a subject beyond reproof in their individuality but are rather a derivative of the mind and thus open to criticism.
When we accept that Truth is absolute and that it is our duty to adhere to it, we will be able to stand firm in approving or disapproving our sentiments, and in finally correcting our sentiments we will at last gain control over our appetites. Yet were the will of all humanity put to this single task it would be too little an effort. Only by the Grace of God may any have wisdom or knowledge. Alone our hearts will remain as wicked and empty, and our minds will find no true beacon to guide them. Jesus came to demonstrate by His life that He is the Way of the heart, the Truth of the mind and the Life of the stomach, and none of us shall reach the Father but through Him.
Jason
Friday, May 1, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Dawn
I knew that if I stopped but for a moment to consider the wonder and glory that the God of which they spoke possessed, I should be undone. All my clever defenses would quit me like mists blown by a strong wind off the lake. String by carefully woven string in the barricade of my schema would unravel, be hacked to shreds, as if the Fates had grown bored of their duty and become sansculottes of the cognitive realm - snipping the bonds of my conscience with maenadic fervor. The piercing light of dawn ever threatened to plunge into the darkness of my mind and force open my eyes. Sometimes the brightness was so overwhelming it threw the world on the other side of my shroud-lids into brilliant orange. Yet for all the clarity of the darkness nothing could prepare me for the lucidity of the sun.
I stole the first peek facing away from the horizon where the sun would soon crest and begin his stroll across the sky. And as I turned slowly (ever too slowly!) so he rose to meet me. Thus as I increased my field of vision in regard to the luminescence the magnitude of the sun's glow grew as well. As if seeing the light was not apology enough for its glory its existence expanded a fortiori. It takes no time to prima facie become a votary of the sun (but it must be an honest viewing!) when our dark reverie is discarded and we awaken to the persistent promulgation of light that is the Divine Metonymy of this world.
I stole the first peek facing away from the horizon where the sun would soon crest and begin his stroll across the sky. And as I turned slowly (ever too slowly!) so he rose to meet me. Thus as I increased my field of vision in regard to the luminescence the magnitude of the sun's glow grew as well. As if seeing the light was not apology enough for its glory its existence expanded a fortiori. It takes no time to prima facie become a votary of the sun (but it must be an honest viewing!) when our dark reverie is discarded and we awaken to the persistent promulgation of light that is the Divine Metonymy of this world.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Novus Ordo Mundus
The rhetoric of globalization, the global community and a new world order meet us at almost every turn in today's politics. It is unlikely that anyone is unfamiliar with the terms or the general feeling they invoke. What is likely, is that the underlying assumptions and implications that this language carries with it go unattended in most minds. I think on the whole it is viewed that global "oneness" includes a happy, contented belief that everyone else in the world is human in the same way as ourselves; that the radical Muslim in Iran has the same human problems as the Catholic next door. In one respect this acknowledgment of a common human condition is correct, but taken another way, this view (and the ramifications of the masses accepting it) is dangerous.
Firstly, the idea that all humanity is equivalent not in being sinful, but in experiencing similar emotions, thoughts, and outlooks, is to disregard entirely the affects of culture and religion. In our egoism we conclude that our unique thought processes are distinctly human and representative of the species in general. Freud made each individual study his past; today we have all looked back and found the same human root and concluded that we must be the same branch as well. It's easy to forget the words, "Yet hear now, O Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen. Thus says the LORD who made you and formed you from the womb" (Isaiah XLIV 1-2). There is nothing of community in the LORD's words here, He is strictly personal on the subject of creating each person. What I think is easy to forget, is that the tree that our botanist-psychoanalysts are studying, has many roots. The analogy that plays closest to the melody, I think, is that we are each created individually, and as many roots merge into the trunk, so many people come together into sin and form a single Fallen Man. Then, being in sin, Man branches out on many paths of evil, and some into buds of salvation where the water of Grace, the light of Love, and pruning of Scripture has yielded holy fruit. But that is a picture better painted another day by a better studied man than I. The point is that despite our common sin, each man is distinct, with his own woven past and unfolding future.
Truly, though, despite the consequences of a global community mindset on the individual, the real trouble comes with the politics of the thing. Another of the assumptions of a world order that is pushed under the rug or hung up in the closet, is that of governance. It seems to be considered that we should all simply "get along" and "live in harmony." While there are current thorns in the side of this harmonious community, the solutions offered present a bit of what I'm talking about. Leaders of nations are not looking to countries like Iran, North Korea, and other mavericks has undisciplined school children that need to be shown their place; these states are instead considered to be rebellious outsiders in need of an offered spot at the table. That the result of nuclear threats should be militaristic preparation and response seems clear. If your neighbor brought a gun to your doorstep you would hardly greet him without first being resolved to shoot him should he try anything. But what it seems to me that the "free world" is doing, is to respond as a united front, not for the purpose of retaliation, but for the purpose of denouncement and invitation. One may argue that the global community arranged in this manner is the best instrument for world peace, I disagree. That is no more than an empire, when all states join one homogeneous "order," whether they do so willingly or not. And empires, as history shows us, do not last, but rather splinter along many lines. When retaliation and then, this is essential, grace is involved in the aftermath, that is where true alliances come from. The United States' relationships with Japan and Germany after World War II are a better demonstration of good international politics than Russia's formation of the Soviet Union.
I recently read in an article that a former world leader approached the world as the ruler of a powerful nation speaking to a community of rulers of lesser nations. This type of policy was tossed out, the article said, by the current leader of the same nation, who now offered to come along side other states and listen to them, speak with them, and generally secede his place as "the" global authority. But I must read between the lines and make the connection with the previous arguments of all people coming together into a "new world order." As I said before, the question that is unspoken when talk is had of uniting the world into a single community, is that of who shall govern it. All states may be defined as societies upon which different types of organizations exist to establish how the society runs and then to enforce those laws. Plato in his Republic sets about discussing the type of society he considers beneficial before naming the guardians as the head of that society, and the philosopher-king takes the place of government in so much as he governs society. The crux of the problem we're discussing, is that when these nations of the world "unite" and "come together to build a stronger, global regime," their must be someone appointed to lead it. Locke argues that a social contract binds people and government, that this constitution holds each to respect the other. I might claim that even authoritarian kingdoms contain a social contract, in that when the ruler acts entirely outside of what is deemed appropriate, the people respond. This very occurrence brought about the West's first taste of democracy in 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta, and the most definitive rebellion against the breaking of a social contract is well known as the American Revolution.
What is different with the idea of a world order created by the leaders of states, is that up until now people entered into agreement with governments for the sake of promulgating a contract. When only governments are concerned with creating a new government, the people have no voice. It is assumed by each nation's ruler that the people have spoken favorably when they elected (or in some cases, didn't rebel against) him. Thus, without general consent a union may be formed that sets forth a new government over and above its member nations. And someone (I do not think this will be a democracy) will have to rule this "community." As that realization strikes, the man most in-line to claim the throne will be him who "lowered" himself and drove for unity in the first place. "The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector," is how Plato described it. The good man becomes an emperor. Power doesn't corrupt, it simply removes the mask. He who worked so hard to bring the nations together will have no opposition to, will even be promoted to, the throne. What started as humans connecting on a false emotional equilibrium will ultimately become a tyrannical world government. We may only pray to hold off for a little while, and to be diligent in our observations, "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." We may mourn our inevitable situation, but "so do all who live to see such times." The best we may do is to pray, hope and work. These are all the gifts our LORD has given us and we must use them to the fullest.
Jason
Firstly, the idea that all humanity is equivalent not in being sinful, but in experiencing similar emotions, thoughts, and outlooks, is to disregard entirely the affects of culture and religion. In our egoism we conclude that our unique thought processes are distinctly human and representative of the species in general. Freud made each individual study his past; today we have all looked back and found the same human root and concluded that we must be the same branch as well. It's easy to forget the words, "Yet hear now, O Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen. Thus says the LORD who made you and formed you from the womb" (Isaiah XLIV 1-2). There is nothing of community in the LORD's words here, He is strictly personal on the subject of creating each person. What I think is easy to forget, is that the tree that our botanist-psychoanalysts are studying, has many roots. The analogy that plays closest to the melody, I think, is that we are each created individually, and as many roots merge into the trunk, so many people come together into sin and form a single Fallen Man. Then, being in sin, Man branches out on many paths of evil, and some into buds of salvation where the water of Grace, the light of Love, and pruning of Scripture has yielded holy fruit. But that is a picture better painted another day by a better studied man than I. The point is that despite our common sin, each man is distinct, with his own woven past and unfolding future.
Truly, though, despite the consequences of a global community mindset on the individual, the real trouble comes with the politics of the thing. Another of the assumptions of a world order that is pushed under the rug or hung up in the closet, is that of governance. It seems to be considered that we should all simply "get along" and "live in harmony." While there are current thorns in the side of this harmonious community, the solutions offered present a bit of what I'm talking about. Leaders of nations are not looking to countries like Iran, North Korea, and other mavericks has undisciplined school children that need to be shown their place; these states are instead considered to be rebellious outsiders in need of an offered spot at the table. That the result of nuclear threats should be militaristic preparation and response seems clear. If your neighbor brought a gun to your doorstep you would hardly greet him without first being resolved to shoot him should he try anything. But what it seems to me that the "free world" is doing, is to respond as a united front, not for the purpose of retaliation, but for the purpose of denouncement and invitation. One may argue that the global community arranged in this manner is the best instrument for world peace, I disagree. That is no more than an empire, when all states join one homogeneous "order," whether they do so willingly or not. And empires, as history shows us, do not last, but rather splinter along many lines. When retaliation and then, this is essential, grace is involved in the aftermath, that is where true alliances come from. The United States' relationships with Japan and Germany after World War II are a better demonstration of good international politics than Russia's formation of the Soviet Union.
I recently read in an article that a former world leader approached the world as the ruler of a powerful nation speaking to a community of rulers of lesser nations. This type of policy was tossed out, the article said, by the current leader of the same nation, who now offered to come along side other states and listen to them, speak with them, and generally secede his place as "the" global authority. But I must read between the lines and make the connection with the previous arguments of all people coming together into a "new world order." As I said before, the question that is unspoken when talk is had of uniting the world into a single community, is that of who shall govern it. All states may be defined as societies upon which different types of organizations exist to establish how the society runs and then to enforce those laws. Plato in his Republic sets about discussing the type of society he considers beneficial before naming the guardians as the head of that society, and the philosopher-king takes the place of government in so much as he governs society. The crux of the problem we're discussing, is that when these nations of the world "unite" and "come together to build a stronger, global regime," their must be someone appointed to lead it. Locke argues that a social contract binds people and government, that this constitution holds each to respect the other. I might claim that even authoritarian kingdoms contain a social contract, in that when the ruler acts entirely outside of what is deemed appropriate, the people respond. This very occurrence brought about the West's first taste of democracy in 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta, and the most definitive rebellion against the breaking of a social contract is well known as the American Revolution.
What is different with the idea of a world order created by the leaders of states, is that up until now people entered into agreement with governments for the sake of promulgating a contract. When only governments are concerned with creating a new government, the people have no voice. It is assumed by each nation's ruler that the people have spoken favorably when they elected (or in some cases, didn't rebel against) him. Thus, without general consent a union may be formed that sets forth a new government over and above its member nations. And someone (I do not think this will be a democracy) will have to rule this "community." As that realization strikes, the man most in-line to claim the throne will be him who "lowered" himself and drove for unity in the first place. "The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector," is how Plato described it. The good man becomes an emperor. Power doesn't corrupt, it simply removes the mask. He who worked so hard to bring the nations together will have no opposition to, will even be promoted to, the throne. What started as humans connecting on a false emotional equilibrium will ultimately become a tyrannical world government. We may only pray to hold off for a little while, and to be diligent in our observations, "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." We may mourn our inevitable situation, but "so do all who live to see such times." The best we may do is to pray, hope and work. These are all the gifts our LORD has given us and we must use them to the fullest.
Jason
Friday, April 3, 2009
Another Question...
Well, while my fellow writers think through my last question, I turn to the audience for participation.
I need material, content, a direction. Pose a question (multiple people can post questions) in the comments to this post and I'll offer what I can in response to one, or perhaps all (depending on the activity, again, of my compatriots).
Ask away!
Jason
I need material, content, a direction. Pose a question (multiple people can post questions) in the comments to this post and I'll offer what I can in response to one, or perhaps all (depending on the activity, again, of my compatriots).
Ask away!
Jason
Thursday, March 26, 2009
A New Question
I decided I would try to encourage some more discussion on this blog with a new question. It would be nice if we all wrote a response, and I hope our readers will feel free to comment and add their own thoughts.
The Question: What humors God, and how does Man skew humor with sin?
The Question: What humors God, and how does Man skew humor with sin?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Faith Without Works is Dead
Faith without works is dead
"Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
James 2:17
An important aspect to be considered when looking at this particular passage, is to understand why James chose to use the term 'dead' to describe faith that is not working. James is concerned with an issue of life or death. Can a faith that is dead save a Christian from death? The question answers itself. Verses 15 and 16 tell the story of an ungenerous believer and how his empty words cannot save his brother from death when there is no provision of life's bare necessities. In the same way, a non-working faith cannot save our lives from the death-dealing consequences of sin.
I think it is good to recognize that the term 'dead' can refer to more than just the death/life terminology used to describe salvation from hell. The English language uses it in many different ways (i.e. "you're dead wrong", "he's dead drunk", "he's dead meat", "that idea is dead", etc.). Paul, in the book of Romans (written in Greek) calls Abraham's body dead while it was still alive and he attributed "deadness" to Sarah's barren womb (Romans 4:19). A Christian's body, in which the Spirit dwells, can be described as dead although the Christian himself is regenerated (Romans 8:10). Paul's usage of the term can be quite broad. In recognizing this whole idea, I think it is near impossible to say (dogmatically at least) that "dead faith" can have only one meaning and that being a soteriological one.
I feel James is describing a faith that is sterile, ineffective and/or unproductive. Context and closer study into other instances in the book of James would beg the argument that he is speaking of the faith that the Christian has and not the faith of the sinner, which first brought him to God. James wanted to admonish and exhort the believers to practive their faith by works.
Say that a sinner hears the gospel message of Christ's free gift of salvation through His dying on the cross for the sins of all men. Say he recognized his need of a savior and he is saved from the consequences of his own sin, placing his faith in Christ. At that moment, this man is justified before God. He is clean in the eyes of the Father. Now say that at this time, this man turns from God and pursues the 'lusts of the flesh' for the remaining duration of his life. Would this man enter into heaven even though the majority of his life was characterized by self-centered 'bad works' all the way up to his dying day?
I am always wary to question a man on whether his belief was genuine and whether or not he received salvation because we cannot read the hearts of men. God knows their hearts and He knows the names of those who are saved. Their names are added to the book of life and more are being added every day. They are added and never subtracted. The Bible states clearly in many passages, that it is by faith and faith alone that a man is saved (1 John 5:9-11). Not by faith plus works or a continuation of works throughout their life.
So in effect, James is saying that healthy faith; a faith of true, strong vitality, will produce good works. But ut is not by these good works that a man is saved, it is not by these good works taht a man proves that he is saved, and a man can be saved yet live life with the absence of good works. Even as we are saved, we have the potential to live in sin. Is this a healthy faith? It is by no means a healthy faith. Through works, faith is made mature.
Let us hold together in unity, as we are, those of the body of Christ. Paul, to the Philippians: "Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind." Philippians 3:15-16 (NKJV)
Thank you for graciously giving me the opportunity to share some thoughts.
By His grace, Kyle
James 2:17
An important aspect to be considered when looking at this particular passage, is to understand why James chose to use the term 'dead' to describe faith that is not working. James is concerned with an issue of life or death. Can a faith that is dead save a Christian from death? The question answers itself. Verses 15 and 16 tell the story of an ungenerous believer and how his empty words cannot save his brother from death when there is no provision of life's bare necessities. In the same way, a non-working faith cannot save our lives from the death-dealing consequences of sin.
I think it is good to recognize that the term 'dead' can refer to more than just the death/life terminology used to describe salvation from hell. The English language uses it in many different ways (i.e. "you're dead wrong", "he's dead drunk", "he's dead meat", "that idea is dead", etc.). Paul, in the book of Romans (written in Greek) calls Abraham's body dead while it was still alive and he attributed "deadness" to Sarah's barren womb (Romans 4:19). A Christian's body, in which the Spirit dwells, can be described as dead although the Christian himself is regenerated (Romans 8:10). Paul's usage of the term can be quite broad. In recognizing this whole idea, I think it is near impossible to say (dogmatically at least) that "dead faith" can have only one meaning and that being a soteriological one.
I feel James is describing a faith that is sterile, ineffective and/or unproductive. Context and closer study into other instances in the book of James would beg the argument that he is speaking of the faith that the Christian has and not the faith of the sinner, which first brought him to God. James wanted to admonish and exhort the believers to practive their faith by works.
Say that a sinner hears the gospel message of Christ's free gift of salvation through His dying on the cross for the sins of all men. Say he recognized his need of a savior and he is saved from the consequences of his own sin, placing his faith in Christ. At that moment, this man is justified before God. He is clean in the eyes of the Father. Now say that at this time, this man turns from God and pursues the 'lusts of the flesh' for the remaining duration of his life. Would this man enter into heaven even though the majority of his life was characterized by self-centered 'bad works' all the way up to his dying day?
I am always wary to question a man on whether his belief was genuine and whether or not he received salvation because we cannot read the hearts of men. God knows their hearts and He knows the names of those who are saved. Their names are added to the book of life and more are being added every day. They are added and never subtracted. The Bible states clearly in many passages, that it is by faith and faith alone that a man is saved (1 John 5:9-11). Not by faith plus works or a continuation of works throughout their life.
So in effect, James is saying that healthy faith; a faith of true, strong vitality, will produce good works. But ut is not by these good works that a man is saved, it is not by these good works taht a man proves that he is saved, and a man can be saved yet live life with the absence of good works. Even as we are saved, we have the potential to live in sin. Is this a healthy faith? It is by no means a healthy faith. Through works, faith is made mature.
Let us hold together in unity, as we are, those of the body of Christ. Paul, to the Philippians: "Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind." Philippians 3:15-16 (NKJV)
Thank you for graciously giving me the opportunity to share some thoughts.
By His grace, Kyle
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Carpenter
There once was a carpenter who lived in the forest and was known to none. He supplied for himself, and had no need to enter town. However, he often would walk to the edge of the forest, where it ended upon the crest of a hill, and gaze into the town below to watch people. Over the course of his observations, the carpenter noticed one man who was very much alone, always moving about by himself and never having anyone over. Seeing his isolation, the carpenter loved this man.
For the next six days the carpenter set about making the lonely man a table. He started by wandering through the forest to find the best quality wood. Once the wood was had, the carpenter brought the materials back to his home and began constructing the table. Endless hours and sleepless nights were spent in delicate care and master craftsmanship. Never before had such love been physically molded. After six strenuous days, the carpenter saw that the table was good, and rested.
Two days later, after rising, the carpenter loaded the table into his cart and set out, for the first time, to the town. He came to the lonely man's house and knocked eagerly on the door. Within a moment the man opened it. "Hello? What is it you want?"
The carpenter's eyes glowed with love, "I have brought you a gift, sir."
After a short mumbling, the man responded, a bit off-set, "Bring it in I suppose."
The two carefully worked the table into the house and set it down. Without another word, the man set about inspecting the table closely. He was no carpenter, no master of the trade, in fact, his experience with tables was the equivalent of a flat-piece on four legs. That did not stop his scrutiny. He easily gazed over the intricacies of the figurines carved on the legs, and the complex woodwork that comprised the precise measurements of the joints, so that no glue was used, but the wood all fit perfectly together. All the man saw, in truth, was a flat-piece on four legs. The carpenter knew this. He could see that no wonder was displayed in the lonely man's eyes. All the same, the carpenter was well-pleased with his gift (for he was honest, and knew his quality), and held no fault on the lonely man for his ignorance.
Within a few minutes of beginning his phantom observation, the lonely man ended, and looked to the carpenter. "I sir, being a wise man, can determine two things from this table. One: it is no beauty, but a simple evolution of wood. And that two: you sir, do not exist."
Now where is the logic in that?
Jason
For the next six days the carpenter set about making the lonely man a table. He started by wandering through the forest to find the best quality wood. Once the wood was had, the carpenter brought the materials back to his home and began constructing the table. Endless hours and sleepless nights were spent in delicate care and master craftsmanship. Never before had such love been physically molded. After six strenuous days, the carpenter saw that the table was good, and rested.
Two days later, after rising, the carpenter loaded the table into his cart and set out, for the first time, to the town. He came to the lonely man's house and knocked eagerly on the door. Within a moment the man opened it. "Hello? What is it you want?"
The carpenter's eyes glowed with love, "I have brought you a gift, sir."
After a short mumbling, the man responded, a bit off-set, "Bring it in I suppose."
The two carefully worked the table into the house and set it down. Without another word, the man set about inspecting the table closely. He was no carpenter, no master of the trade, in fact, his experience with tables was the equivalent of a flat-piece on four legs. That did not stop his scrutiny. He easily gazed over the intricacies of the figurines carved on the legs, and the complex woodwork that comprised the precise measurements of the joints, so that no glue was used, but the wood all fit perfectly together. All the man saw, in truth, was a flat-piece on four legs. The carpenter knew this. He could see that no wonder was displayed in the lonely man's eyes. All the same, the carpenter was well-pleased with his gift (for he was honest, and knew his quality), and held no fault on the lonely man for his ignorance.
Within a few minutes of beginning his phantom observation, the lonely man ended, and looked to the carpenter. "I sir, being a wise man, can determine two things from this table. One: it is no beauty, but a simple evolution of wood. And that two: you sir, do not exist."
Now where is the logic in that?
Jason
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)