Quando Io Movo

Glow

2011-08-17T16:37:00.000-07:00

Five in the morning, the starlight fading,
The all-night DJ stops spinning and starts saying,
That it is morning, it's finally morning,
It showed up right before my eyes without a warning.

Signs scroll a detour up ahead,
And the sky is circulating blue and red.
The dashboard tells me I'm running out of time,
But I just slow the car down; I don't mind.

Everyone must belong somewhere,
I just hope I recognize it when I get there,
Where it ends--if it ends--God only knows,
But I'll head for the horizon's glow.

Deep in Death Valley, the radio,
Is speaking to me in a language I don't know.
Some mixed-up signals, some Spanish song,
I'm interpreting the words all wrong.

Here on the shoreline, as close I can get,
To the spot where dry land gives away to wet,
I raise a chorus; Oh, I raise a hymn,
To the day the sun will rise again.

Moral Abolitionism: Some Thoughts

2011-03-27T13:18:00.001-07:00

In his article Morality: The Final Delusion, philosopher Richard Garner puts forward a radical belief: not only is there no objective standard for morality, but morality itself is a man-made concept. This concept is called Moral Abolitionism. Garner continues to say that

"[A]theists who... stop short of moral abolitionism will be stuck exploiting and supporting something nearly as superstitious and hazardous as the religion they have just rejected."

Having read his article, and several others in a similar vein on Philosophy Now, I'd like to share some thoughts about the precepts set forth by the post-moralists.

Moral Abolitionism is a fairly consistent ideology...
It's always bothered me that hardcore atheists still manage to stump for some kind of objective morality. As Garner points out in his article, even the New Atheists themselves, determined to throw off the shackles of religious thought, still can't bring themselves to deny that morality exists altogether, which seems to be the logical endpoint of a universe with an objective standard-bearer for morality. It's a classic apologetic argument, but it's still strong: how can one thing be better than another if there's no standard of comparison? I realize that atheism and MA are, at the core, complimentary concepts; it's evident, however, that embracing the former does not generally mean embracing the latter.

Unlike moral realists, post-moralists accept that they have no right to make any sort of moral judgement at all. Jesse Prinz, in his essay Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response, says:

"Objectivists might reply that progress has clearly been made. Aren’t our values better than those of the ‘primitive’ societies that practice slavery, cannibalism, and polygamy? Here we are in danger of smugly supposing superiority. Each culture assumes it is in possession of the moral truth."

By making such a bold statement, Prinz is saying what most post-moralists will not: there is no objective morality at all. From this, we can extrapolate that completely relative morality is essentially the same as amorality--a moral system with no rules is not really a system at all.

...but it's ultimately unsatisfying
So, after dismissing morality as a harmful, outdated idea, where does Moral Abolitionism leave us? Garner addresses this briefly, claiming that moral judgements can be replaced by preference backed up by reasoning.

Instead of telling others about their moral obligations, we can tell them what we want them to do, and then we can explain why. We can express annoyance, anger, and enthusiasm, each of which has an effect on what people do, and none of which requires language that presupposes objective values or obligations. The moral abolitionist is equipped, as we all are, with habits, preferences, policies, aims, and impulses that can easily play the roles usually assigned to moral beliefs and thoughts.

But this, to me, is where it all falls apart. Not the central tenants of Moral Abolitionism--this seems to be the logical endgame for that--but Moral Abolitionism as a system of life. Garner offers, in place of an objective standard, a standard based on how we happen to feel, which, though marginally better than the one offered by Prinz, is still unlivable.

Setting the Example
Garner offers two examples of how Moral Abolitionism simplifies difficult decision: abortion and capital punishment. He states:

[M]oral abolitionists will advise any moralist or moral fictionalists who is not forced by circumstances to make some such choice to stand aside in mute support of those individuals who are.

This sounds good, but even in his own examples, he's inconsistent. He states " There is no way to determine whether the moral rights of the fetus are stronger than those of the mother because there are no such things as moral rights." but then, later on, while refusing to take a stance on capital punishment, says

Apart from the stipulated penalties in the laws currently in force, any one of which can be changed, nobody deserves to suffer for any reason whatever. It is this rejection of the idea of “moral desert” that will finally make it possible to discuss remedies to crimes and incivilities without having to pander to moral ire and posturing. We have overdosed on desert, and it would be both healthy and economical to go on a diet.

I hardly know how to respond to this. By the logic put forth in the earlier example, no Moral Abolitionist could enforce any sort of punishment on a criminal unless they were themselves the one wronged; that is, in a Moral Abolitionist utopia, criminals would not be tried by a jury of their peers, but rather by the person or people their crimes were against. Further, since there is no way for anyone's belief to be superior, the criminal would have nothing to worry about in the first place, since he couldn't possibly be in the wrong.

I don't doubt that Garner is an intelligent man, and I'm sure he'd take issue with my interpretation. Prinz even addresses my complaint to some extent:

[M]oral values do not become more true. But they can become better by other criteria. For example, some sets of values are more consistent and more conducive to social stability.

But he doesn't--I would say cannot--explain why social stability is more desirable than anarchy, or why it is even important to have a consistent set of values. Is it wrong for me to eat my neighbor? If so, why? The extreme relativity in this pair of papers removes all grounds for condemning any behavior whatsoever. We cannot appeal to inalienable rights: happiness is no better than sadness, kindness no better than cruelty, murder no worse than charity. Maybe these men have considered the implications of their beliefs and have come to accept them; I cannot.

Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard

2010-06-11T05:02:00.000-07:00

“Much is said in our age about irony and humor, especially by those who have never been capable of engaging in the practice of these arts, but who nevertheless know how to explain everything.”

I think it’s safe to say that I was not prepared for this book. I was drawn in by the premise—Kierkegaard, one of the fathers of existentialism, writing a treatise on faith, using the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son Isaac as his basis—and its length, a scant 95 pages. It sounded right up my alley, but I hadn’t counted on Kierkegaard’s writing style, which is intentionally dense and off-putting to discourage the casual reader (me). So it turns out that this little pamphlet actually took longer to read than the 400 page Robin Hood.

But anyway, on to the content of the book. As mentioned above, Fear and Trembling is a meditation on the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac as recounted in Genesis 22. I say Abraham’s sacrifice because, although God actually provided a ram to replace Isaac, Kierkegaard argues that, in the most meaningful sense, Abraham did sacrifice Isaac since he remained willing up until the final moment, when the ram appeared.

This is one of the most difficult stories in the entire Bible, and Kierkegaard doesn’t shy away from the difficult questions it raises. Interestingly, however, he doesn’t focus on why God would ask Abraham to commit the act, as many theologians do. He rather focuses on Abraham and what his reaction to the request reveals about him and, in the bigger picture, faith itself.

As the conclusions Kierkegaard reaches, I’ll share what I understand of them here, in greatly condensed form. Kierkegaard says that Abraham is the only example of true faith he knows of, and he defines faith in a very complex way which I’m going to try to communicate in a few points:

a) Faith requires a basic belief in the object of the faith. b) Faith requires complete resignation of the finite world into the hands of God, followed by c) a resignation of infinite matters as well, so that d) finite matters can again be appreciated. Further, Kierkegaard argues that true faith requires more than hope, since hope requires a belief that the event believed in will actually happen. Abraham’s faith was true, he says, because Abraham believed that God would restore Isaac to him even though he also believed it was impossible that Isaac should be restored. Kierkegaard points to faith as an example of the absurd: believing that things that will not happen are going to happen is the paradox of faith.

There’s a lot more in this book (the information I described is mostly in the middle third), including some interesting questions about whether or not ethics can be superseded by a divine command and whether or not it is possible to act both within the boundaries of true faith and ethics at the same time (Kierkegaard argues that for Abraham, the ethical choice—that of not sacrificing his son—was actually a temptation away from the absolute best choice of following God’s command), but to be honest, these sections were both interesting and opaque to me.

I don’t really know how to end this review. I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I’ve exhausted or even fairly explained Kierkegaard’s views in this short post. There’s a lot here, and I may return to it in the future.

(Cross-posted from 50 Books Project)

Devotions

2010-06-05T08:19:00.000-07:00

Every Christian knows one of the most difficult aspects of the Christian Life is having regular devotions. It seems strange that, of all the commands given in the Bible, one of the most difficult to carry out is one of the simplest—we are commanded simply to have a relationship with God. There are, as in every relationship, two aspects—first, we are to talk to God through the regular practice of prayer, and second, we are to allow him to speak to us through the regular practice of reading His Word. I’ve recently, after many years of resisting, began getting up early in the morning and having my devotions first thing, and that it works wonders for consistency. If anyone is reading this, what methods and timeframes work best for you?

A Change of Heart

2010-06-05T08:08:00.000-07:00

When I began this blog a couple years ago, my intent was essentially to create my own little commentary on the Bible, specifically the New Testament. I envisioned a massive blog—maybe even a potential book deal—full of incisive, original observations, personal responses, and critical commentary that would encourage those who read it and eventually create a coherent snapshot of my spiritual beliefs and condition over the two or three year period during which I wrote it. And, honestly, I still think that’s a pretty good idea and maybe even something I’ll be interested in again in the future… but not right now.

As you can see by looking through the archives, I barely made a dent in Matthew before basically quitting. The reasons? A combination of busyness, lack of desire, a paucity of time. Ultimately though, what did me in was a lack of material. I found that I just didn’t have all that much insight. I would read a chapter, and no insights would jump out at me, no commentary would begin forming in my head. And so, this blog died.

But this morning I was thinking, and I’ve decided to repurpose it. I found I’d narrowed the focus of the blog so much that there was no room for reviews of Christian books I’d read, shorter ideas that didn’t merit a complete essay, and so on. So from here on out, I’m going to be updating with everything I write that falls within the very broad criteria established by the subtitle of this little project, “Thoughts on Spirituality”. I can’t promise that every post will be deep and incisive, but it will be an honest reflection of what spiritual topics I’ve taken time to write about instead of an annual update when I finally have an original thought. After all, originality is overrated. What is most desirable is truth, and the search for it.

This entire post may be self-serving—I’m not sure if anyone reads this blog anymore—but it will serve as a statement of purpose for me. Hopefully it will lead to more updates and might even be of interest to someone. Here’s to hoping.

The Weight of Glory by C. S. Lewis

2010-06-05T08:01:00.000-07:00

The difference between this situation [forgiving your fellow man] and the one in which you are asking for God’s forgiveness is this. In our own case we accept excuses too easily; in others, we do not accept them easily enough. As regards my own sins it is a safe bet that the excuses are not really so good as I think; as regards other men’s sins against me it is a safe bet that the excuses are better than I think.

C. S. Lewis is my favorite writer. Like John Updike according to the blurb on the back of my copy of The Weight of Glory, “I read Lewis for comfort and pleasure many years ago, and a glance into the books revives my old admiration.” Everything I desire in non-fiction is present in Lewis’s essays: a consistent but not overbearing authorial voice, a dry sense of humor, and the thoughts of a mind sharp enough to generate thought whether you agree with them or not.

The Weight of Glory is a collection of essays, some of which are adapted from radio addresses Lewis delivered throughout his life. They touch on some the subjects you might expect from Lewis: theology, mythology, Christianity, and some you may not, such as cliques and war. Although it’s true that all these essays end up tying into bigger theological concerns, the smoothness and logic with which Lewis lays out his arguments ought to be an inspiration for Kierkegaards everywhere.

The titular essay concerns itself with the afterlife and the Christian’s response to it. It’s quite powerful and moving, one of the best he ever wrote, and yet the shortest essay in the book, one titled “Forgiveness” was the most impactful on me, saying more in a scant 5 pages than many authors can say in an entire book. The excerpt that opens this review comes from it, and seems to me to be wonderful advice to keep in mind whether you’re a Christian or not.

Considering Joseph: Matthew 1:18-25

2009-08-12T08:09:00.000-07:00

"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord commanded. He brought Mary home to be his wife..."

When I initially read this passage in preparation for this project, I didn't know what to write about it. In American Christian culture, there is no area that receives more attention than the birth of Christ, with the possible exception of His crucifixion. Finding some new angle on the birth narrative is difficult, if not impossible, and I still have two more to go!

With this in mind, I decided a) not to attempt innovation at the expense of accuracy and b) to focus on the unique aspects of Matthew's birth narrative. Reading it in parallel with the other accounts in Luke and Mark, the primary difference seems to be Matthew's emphasis on Joseph.

There may not be any important biblical character more marginalized than Joseph. As Jesus' earthly father, he was given the important task of raising the Son of God¹, but if Joseph is mentioned at any length, the focus is almost always his reaction to finding out about Mary's pregnancy. Understandable, since it's the most interesting thing we're explicitly told about Joseph. It's hard to imagine what a shock it would be to learn that your virginal fiancee was pregnant at all, let alone that it happened under such atypical circumstances. The natural reaction for most of us, myself included, would probably be hurt and anger. However, if Joseph experienced these prior to the angel's confirmation of Mary's story, we aren't told. Although Mosaic law allowed Joseph to publicly break the engagement and save his own reputation, his only recorded reaction is to discreetly break the engagement, explicitly to save Mary any embarrassment.

So what do we learn from Joseph's reaction in this passage? Maybe to trust the ones we love, maybe to trust that God has a plan that is bigger than us. Still, there is one lesson that seems to stand out above all the rest: When given the opportunity for vengeance or, at least, absolving himself of wrongdoing, he chose to act mercifully. Notably, we don't know much about the aftermath of Mary and Joseph's wedding. Chances are, there was plenty of talk--after all, it wasn't like the angel filled in all of Nazareth on what was happening. Still, the Bible itself never speaks negatively about Joseph. History has absolved him, even if it hasn't glorified him.

Joseph's actual position in terms of the biblical family structure pretty interesting too, although I don't know if it's really more interesting than Joseph's character. It did stick out in my mind though, so here goes: The family structure is intended to parallel God's relationship with us. The complex relationships between family members are representative of the relationship between God and his Church and God and the world at large. The most important aspect for this particular observation is that fathers are intended as metaphors for God himself. A child's perception of God is heavily influenced by his view of his father. If his father is authoritarian and harsh, he will likely visualize God similarly. If his father is untrustworthy, trusting God will likely be more difficult, and vice versa. This puts Joseph in a strange and somewhat amusing position. By virtue of simply being a father, he became a representative of God in the symbolic familial structure, but, because his son was literally the Son of God, he was also acting as a physical stand-in for Jesus' actual Father who was, of course, God Himself! So, it's a lot of pressure for one poor guy who just thought he was about to marry his sweetheart.

¹ This is particularly important if you believe, as I do, that Christ had the potential to sin.

Building Jesus: Matthew 1:1-17

2009-04-18T14:15:00.001-07:00

Matthew 1:1 - The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham

This undistinguished verse is the start of the New Testament. If you grew up in church, you know that Matthew starts with a fairly lengthy (but not comprehensive) genealogy of Christ, from Adam through Mary and Joseph. Reading through the list of names here isn't all that exciting, particularly if you don't look up the names, but I do think there are some interesting insights to be found.

I. The Genealogy Question
Looking at verse 1 in a couple different translations, I noticed that "genealogy" was sometimes translated differently, as “history” or “works.” Looking up the original word shows that both of these are legitimate translations, which suggests that Matthew 1:1 may be an introduction for more than just Chapter 1. If it is read as “works” or “history” instead of genealogy, it can be seen as an introduction for the entire book of Matthew, since the book itself tells the story of Christ.

Since I don't believe the ordering of the books of the New Testament was inspired, this next observation is primarily literary, but I found it interesting anyway: Taken even more broadly, Matthew 1:1 can be read as a forward to the entire New Testament. The only requirement is showing that the New Testament is structured around Christ. Broken down into a classical narrative structure, this is easily defended. I see the simplified structure of the New Testament thusly:

Exposition – Christ is born, political and spiritual settings established
Rising Action – Christ begins ministry, recruits disciples, makes enemies by shaking up status quo, Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem
Climax – Christ's enemies arrange to have him arrested, tried, and eventually crucified.
Falling Action – Christ rises from the dead, appears to disciples, ascends t Heaven to send the Holy Spirit to continue His work.
Denouement/Resolution – Christ's disciples spread the Gospel and recruit new followers, expanding Christ's doctrines into practical everyday life.

II. The Relationship Metaphor
While a few of the names in the list are notable, familiar even to non-Christians (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of Israel; Rahab of Jericho, the first Gentile in the list, who protected Joshua's spies; Ruth and Boaz; several kings, including David, the man after God's own heart), but mixed in are several people of whom we know little to nothing--Salmon, Shealtiel, Zadok, Matthan, etc. In fact, their only importance in the narrative is that they are in Jesus' line, related to the dramatic center of the New Testament.

In the same way that these people acquire historical significance from their historical relationship to Christ, Christians acquire their spiritual significance from their spiritual relationship to Christ. Seen in this light, Christ's genealogy serves as a powerful metaphor for “the least of these”, those forgotten by the world who are nevertheless important, irreplaceable members of Christ's spiritual family.

This is already getting fairly long, so I'll finish up my analysis of Matthew 1 in my next post.

Introduction: Blogging the New Testament

2009-04-09T16:31:00.000-07:00

Introduction: Why Blog the New Testament?

I have no idea if anyone will actually be reading this. I'm not alerting anyone that I'll be updating this blog after months of inactivity, and I'm not sure the content I'm actually updating with will interest anyone but me. It may not even be intelligible.

So why even try to blog the entire New Testament? Well, first off, I should confess that I've shamelessly stolen the idea of blogging the Bible from Slate's David Plotz. I admit, I've only read a couple of Plotz's dispatches, but the idea intrigued me. What better way to experience the Bible than to dig into it like I would any other piece of literature? As a Christian, the Bible obviously holds a different attraction for me than for Plotz, a non-practicing Jew, but the concept seems to translate. Read the Bible (or in my case, the New Testament) and write down my thoughts as they come to me. If possible, edit them into a readable form. It's a win-win for me; I get a bulk of material to write and write about, and I get more intimately acquainted with the Bible on both a personal and intellectual level.

So why only the New Testament? I initially planned to try writing about the entire Bible, but abandoned that idea (for now) for two reasons. One, the Old Testament is a lot longer than the New Testament. In my Bible, the Old Testament is 1,057 pages long, with the New is only 300. As difficult as sticking to any sort of long term project is for me, starting off blogging a book longer than War and Peace seemed to guarantee failure.

Secondly, the New Testament seems to me to be more practical for my purposes. Although the Old Testament is vital for fully understanding the new, the New Testament contains a lot more advice for daily living, particularly given my views of the authority of the Old Testament in the life of the believer, an issue I may or may not tackle later on, depending on my mood. The other reason the NT seems more practical is because avoiding the Old Testament avoids many of the issues that Christians tend to get caught up in at the expense of other, more important issues.

I have no interest (or the knowledge necessary to) debate Creation or the minutiae of Old Testament law. I may have something to say that would be useful to someone (even myself) about day-to-day living or the literary aspects of the NT; I doubt I'm going to add anything new to these age-old debates. I'd rather spend time on things that interest me.

The Politics of Faith

2008-06-16T19:46:00.000-07:00

"The Lord is the strength of my life; whom shall I fear?" - Psalm 27:1

Another election year is upon us. A time to look forward to new beginnings, to experience some trepidation about the foreign and domestic policies of the upcoming president, and to either reminisce on the good times with current administration or to curse its inevitable missteps. That is, unless you're a Christian. If you're a Christian, each new election is another chance to slip from serene, faith-based rationality into frenetic, emotionally-charged panic.

Every four years, a notable percentage of the Christians I know (and many of those I don't) forsake all semblance of reason to spread unsubstantiated rumors about the possible misdeeds of "the other candidate," usually a Democrat. They spend the months leading up the election is a worried state not much different from mild dementia, their voices trembling slightly as they inform everyone they meet that the world is ending if the wrong person gets into the White House. This year, I've had people tell me they'd be surprised if we ever held another free election if Obama is elected. I've received countless email forward indicating Obama doesn't salute the flag; he doesn't support the troops; he's a radical Muslim in disguise; and so on. I have yet to receive one that indicates that he is black, but I suspect it will be forthcoming before this election cycle is over.

This eleventh hour panic of the faithful seems very strange to me. Of all people, shouldn't Christians be the ones least concerned with those in political power? Paul, writing during the time of the Roman Empire (a greater threat to Christians than even Obama and his pastor), had very little to say about the political climate. I can find in his letters no overexcited hyperbole urging Christians to hand out poorly-researched political pamphlets, lest another pagan be elected Caesar. Paul's only nods toward politics seem to instruct Christians to obey the government as much possible and to focus on spreading the Gospel of Christ. "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord," Proverbs says, but to hear my fellow Christians discuss politics, you might be forgiven for thinking they don't have an Old Testament. Modern Christianity has transformed itself from a grassroots movement that sought to change society by changing lives, into a Political Action Committee trying to enforce morality through legislation, a plan that might change the nation's actions but can never change its heart. Even if it succeeded, it would only create a nation of pretty tombs, gleaming rocks full of dead bones.

The notion of the apolitical Christian is anathema in modern Christianity, but historically the church's greatest successes have always been those that started with the people and worked up, rather than starting with the government and working down. Unfortunately, many Christians have alienated the very people they are supposed to be reaching by focusing their considerable energies on opposing same-sex marriage, Roe vs. Wade, and gun control instead of building real, genuine relationships with those around them. Christians need to realize there is never going to be nationwide repentance just because we have a Conservative Supreme Court. True change comes only from knowing Jesus Himself, something no law can ever cause.

This year, instead of getting caught up in exactly which end-time prophecies Obama is fulfilling or making bullet-pointed lists of the ways the McCain resembles Hilary (I found 19 parallels!), I'm trying to keep a proper perspective. The hearts of kings are in the hand of the Lord--what do I have to be afraid of? Besides Muslim, gun control, and gays, that is.

2008-05-05T13:01:00.000-07:00

I saw a light in the distance. It got brighter as I got closer until it filled my vision entirely. I thought I was waking up.

Overcoming Temptation: Or, Making Besetting Sins Give Up Their Seats

2007-05-02T15:57:00.000-07:00

Overcoming Temptation
Or, How I made my besetting sins give up their seats.

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. - James 4:7

It seems obvious to say, but the inability to resist temptation is at the bottom of the spiritual malaise that many young (and old) Christians find themselves in. When overcoming temptation is comes up, there are always a multitude of solutions offered, of varying validity. Terms are bandied about like accountability, thinking about why the sin is such a problem, talking it out, counseling, confiding in the church and so on. While most of these are perfectly acceptable solutions to an extent, I don't believe that any of them truly capture what the Bible itself says about resisting temptation. I'm no Bible scholar, but I am a witness for what God has used in my life to help me overcome temptation, and I hope that this simple treatment might help someone who is struggling.

Anyone who has tried the various means of resistance mentioned in the preceding paragraph has, if they are like me, found that they're all deficient. I would like to show a) why they're deficient and b) what I believe the Bible does teach (and what has worked in my life).

I don't think the various methods listed above really need to be taken individually, since I think they all tend to be deficient in a similar way. That is, while they may indeed help us recognize and categorize our temptations, I am dubious that accountability, talking it out, and spending time thinking about the “why” of succumbing will ever result in a real heart change, or, indeed, in a long-term behavioral change. I think this can be amply exhibited by looking at our own lives, and our previous experiences battling temptations. Every one of us has spent time stewing over why we can't resist certain things, talking to spiritual mentors about our biggest struggles, and being counseled by friends and clergy. While these things might all be legitimate things in some contexts, they all have the same underlying problem: every one of them seems engineered to keep us thinking about our sin instead of our Savior

For as [he] thinketh in his heart, so is he – Proverbs 23:7a

If you have a Bible with a concordance handy, look up temptation, and check out the verses about overcoming it. The Bible has a lot to say about it, but when you study it, you'll find a glaring lack of reference to any of the modern methods that we've been indoctrinated to accept.

Flee also youthful lust; but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. - 2 Tim. 2:22

Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation – Mat. 26:41

No temptation has taken except that which is common to man, and God is faithful, He will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you can bear. - I Cor. 10:13

And there are many, many more. These verses are so familiar to most of us that it might be surprising to find that, when we really read them, we don't find any reference to meditating on our sin, to thinking of ways we can avoid falling into it, or to telling our friends about it. We don't find anything about self-esteem, or figuring out the underlying causes, or blaming our parents or our situations for them. Instead, what we find is so simple that we can hardly believe it. God's technique for avoiding temptation seems to be... praying and trusting him.

Now, lest anyone think I'm oversimplifying, praying and trusting is not as easy as it sounds. On the other hand, getting God's help with our temptations is not as difficult as it probably seems. The main questions to ask yourself are, “Do I really want to quit this behavior?” and “Am I willing to invest the time necessary with God to eliminate it?” Secondarily, it's important to know exactly how the Bible says we should pray about our temptations.

First things first. Before we can be delivered from any temptation, we must sincerely want deliverance. Not only that, but we must truly want deliverance more than we want to commit the sin, and we must be willing to give us habits and routines that lead us into sin. Do you find yourself at inappropriate websites everytime you're online late at night? Stay offline. Do certain activities cause you to have bad attitudes, or lead your mind in inappropriate directions? Give up those activites. Do you spend more time thinking about movies or music than meditating on God's word? Give up those movies or music. The truth is, most people who claim they can't possibly achieve victory over temptation are the people who are completely unwilling to change their lifestyle to do so. They claim they love God (and may even think they do) and want to live a victorious Christian life, but their actions don't reflect it. I'd like to offer an illustration.

If a man claims that he loves a woman and marries her, she would reasonably expect that he would give up certain types of activities in regards to other women. He would avoid certain situations, he would not be looking for dates, he would not be flirting with other women, and so on. If a man was doing everything he could reasonably do to show his love to his wife, we would have no reason to expect that he didn't really love her. On the other hand, if the same man were to get married and, while claiming to love his wife, went out and had an affair, his actions have completely invalidated his words, and even his emotions. He may still THINK he really loves his wife. He may have plenty of flowery emotions for her at certain times, but we know that love is not the same as romance, and how he felt would make no difference at all if he was unwilling to give up his other lovers for his wife.

Now, transpose this to our relationship with God. We can spend all the time we want reading the Bible, praying, going to church, associating with Christian friends, and even doing good deeds. We may even feel some flowery emotions during a particularly good service or while listening to a particular song, but as long as we continue to give into a temptation over and over, it becomes evident that we have a lover who takes precedence. I know it's not a popular thing to say, but the main thing that seems to keep most Christians from a victorious life is selfishness. Unwillingness to give up activities we enjoy in order to live a more victorious life. Unwilling to spend less time watching baseball so we can spend more time in prayer. Unwilling to miss a few meals, or a few hours of sleep, or some social event so that we can spend time with God. Jacob wrestled with God all night. Jesus fasted in the desert for forty days. They claimed to love God above all else, and proved it with their actions. Most of us can't even give up a treasured film or CD.

Now, the second question, “Am I willing to invest the time with God necessary to eliminate this behavior?” There's so much overlap with the previous question that giving this one its own treatment seems a little redundant, but there is a point to be reiterated. We cannot expect that God will reverse in two minutes habits we have spent an entire lifetime cultivating. Tossing up a casual prayer before you put yourself directly in temptation's way is not a failsafe guarantee that it's not going to be another defeat. In fact, such a cavalier attitude all but guarantees it.

So, how should we pray, and how can we actually overcome? I think I'm going to split that bit off into a separate essay. Thanks to everyone who read this, and who requested it.

What I've Learned: Hot Coals

2007-05-02T15:56:00.000-07:00

What I've Learned: Hot Coals

Can a man take fire to in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? - Prov. 6:27-28

I guess it takes a special kind of person, either especially stubborn or especially dense, who won't recognize when he's walking on hot coals. It seems like something that should be impossible to miss, like remembering to put on your pants before going outside, or remembering to turn on the water before you get a shower. I'd think anyone who forgot to do those things on a regular basis had a bit of a problem in the head, but it's hard to deny that I've spent a lot of my life doing something just as obvious and infinitely more damaging.

Proverbs 23:7 says “For as [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he,” but it's easy for Christians (or those in predominantly Christian environments) to assume that they're immune to corruption. After all, most of us go to church a couple times a week, read our Bible more or less daily, spend a few minutes in prayer before we fall asleep, and associate, in large part, with other Christians just like ourselves. Because of this, it had always seemed strange to me that I would struggle and fall into many of the same activities, attitudes, and reactions that I would expect from non-Christians. After all, wasn't I more or less saturated in Christianity? Didn't I listen to Christian music, read Christian books, attend Christian worship services, and pray to a Christian God whenever I had insurmountable troubles? It all looked so good on paper, but, after struggling through a weak, ineffectual spiritual life for years, I finally decided to get down to the brass tacks, and try to discern exactly why I couldn't seem to be victorious.

First, I took account of my time. When I truly examined it and how it was spent, I was amazed. Sure, I spent part of Sunday in church, and usually went to prayer meetings on Wednesday night. Add that together with my devotions (15 minutes before bed if I don't forget), and here were the spiritual totals I came up with for my time:

Devotions: 1 hour, 45 minutes a week
Church: 5 hours a week (a rather generous estimate)
Misc. spiritual activities (Discussing spiritual things, genuinely absorbing Christian media): 2 hours

So, assuming that my figures were right, I spent about 8 hours and 45 minutes a week involved in spiritual activity, which didn't seem too bad until I considered it in context with all the rest of my time. If I get 8 hours of sleep a night, that leaves 16 hours a day to fill with other activity. Assuming 8 hours of work on 5 of those days, that's 56 hours of free time a week, completely excluding Sunday, since I mostly just went to church and slept on that day. That meant I spent about 16% of my free time engaged in spiritual pursuits, and the other 84% engaged in mostly neutral things. Not very encouraging figures, but they looked even worse when I tried to figure out what exactly I did fill my free time with. I wasn't able to figure out exact estimates on any of the activities I thought of, but just looking down a list of them was a little depressing.

Watching movies or TV shows
Reading secular books
Napping
Chatting/Surfing the internet
Posting on messageboards

And so on. I'd like to state that I still don't feel that there's anything inherently wrong with the above activities, assuming they are practiced within the parameters of Christian principle, but the sheer amount of time spent doing them was staggering to me. Looking through the list, I was hard pressed to find anything particularly redeeming about any of my leisure activities, with the possible exception of some chatting and some messageboarding. The flip side was that these same two activities that had some positive attributes were also the ones with the blackest marks against them. Some of the messageboards I've frequented have had a large amount of intelligent, morally neutral (or even positive) things written on them, but mixed in with that was plenty of coarse language, sexual innuendo, and lots of generally anti-Christian thought. Hardly an edifying way to spend 86% of my time.

It was while thinking along these lines that Proverbs 6:26-27 really hit me. I had been spending 86% of my times pulling burning coals as close as I possibly could to myself, holding them there during the majority of my waking hours, and then being surprised when my obligatory 15 minutes with God wasn't enough to make me into a victorious Christian. It's like wearing asbestos gloves and jumping into a firepit. Your hands might not get burned, but you can bet that the rest of your body will, and I'm living proof that the same thing happens in our spiritual lives. I discovered that, as much as I might enjoy some of the things I do, they had taken precedence over the weightier matters, so to speak, and resolving this was my purpose entering this week.

I resolved to dedicate the week to God, spending my free time in Bible reading a prayer as much as was realistic, and eliminating virtually all media (excepting a small amount of music) from my schedule. I took inventory of the websites where I spent the most time, and totally eliminated several from my list. There are some coals that are too hot to handle, even if there is a small amount of good to be gleaned from them. A bit of thought-provoking discussion or an occasional good laugh is not worth a life dressing the burns. As to the sites that seemed positive, I decided to temporarily eliminate them from my routine, to be worked back in gradually whenever there is space. I don't watch many movies or TV shows these days, but I decided to eliminate all of them for the week, with intentions to evaluate and possibly work some of them back in at the end of the week. I also resolved to spend my time while at work listening to Christian music or lectures/sermons, in order to keep my mind set on my spiritual goals. I confess, at the time I made these resolutions, they seemed extreme and even impossible to me, but I have not found that to be the case.

The truth is, I have found the exact opposite to be true. As I have dedicated time to studying Scripture, prayer, and the reading of Christian literature, I have felt myself being changed, and in a more dramatic way than I would have ever dared hope. My devotions stopped being a drudgery, even though they were lasting an hour or more. Instead, I felt myself drawing closer to God, appreciating his Word and the way it fed my spirit in a way I had never felt before. I would read verses and find myself incapable of doing anything but laughing, crying, and invoking God's name, often simultaneously. While driving Wednesday night, I was suddenly overwhelmed at the sad state of non-Christians. First my unsaved friends, then the inhabitants of the houses I was driving past, and finally the entire city, suddenly seemed to me as if hey were dangling on the brink of Hell, and I suppose it's true. I parked and tried to pray, but I felt like Paul, trying to speaking “groanings that cannot be uttered.” This all coming from someone whose devotions have virtually always been cold, formal things, and this is not, to my mind, the most amazing part.

The most amazing thing to result from these new resolutions, the thing I can hardly believe (and it fills me with joy to even write it down) is that, not only have I not fallen back into the old habits and attitudes I was trying to avoid. This would have been more than I had any right to expect, but so much more has happened. Far from struggling day and night, avoiding by mere inches temptations that clutch at my heels, there is no attraction to them at all. To borrow a phrase, “There's no longing for the things of the world / They've taken wings” and it certainly seems that it's so. I've not had the slightest inkling, the tiniest urge to go back to my old ways. I have not missed the things I've given up, and I have not longed to do the things I've eschewed. It is a miracle, that God could reverse in a week what I have built over a lifetime, but I have been delivered! Delivered from old attitudes, wicked patterns of behavior, useless grudges, pointless worries, all gone. I've started with a clean slate like I'd never had them at all. Praise God, because there's no one else who could have possibly done it.

I don't know whether my deliverance is temporary, to give me a chance to strengthen my faith and resolve, or if it a permenant thing, but regardless, any quarter at all is far more than I deserve. I, who have spent most of my life serving myself while giving God the crumbs, have been the subject of a miracle that seems so amazing to me that, if I had known myself without being myself, I would not have believed it was possible.

I know this is lengthy and, reading it over, it seems to be rather formal, but I didn't know how to write it. How can I express the deep things of my soul, the joy that I have that I can barely even comprehend? Words aren't enough to do it justice. All the exclamation points in the world couldn't convey it, so this is all I can do. I know it's long, but maybe someone will be able to relate to it, and maybe it will help. If not, it's given me another chance to reflect on what God has done for me, and I think that's enough.

Virtual Executive Assistant

2006-12-31T08:15:00.000-08:00

Are you looking for a virtual executive assistant? Have you been unable to find one in the US who charges rates you can afford?

Good news! You can now work with an Ivy League-educated, former Fortune-500 employee who will work with you on a part-time basis (as few as 5 hours/week!).

Secretary in Israel has a team of American college-graduates who all work as your marketing and administrative assistant. You can read the bios of each of their American virtual executive assistants and find one who is a fit for you.

Christmas Mass and the Fear of God

2006-12-22T22:52:00.000-08:00

This year, I'm attempting to find a Catholic church nearby that's holding a midnight mass on Christmas. Having been raised Protestant, I've never been to mass at all, Christmas or normal, and I think it would be an interesting experience. I disagree with the Roman Catholic church on many issues, but one thing that I believe they've retained (and that most Protestants have lost) is a sense of reverence and awe when it comes to interacting with God.

Some modern Christians may object to the idea that we ought to fear God, and I sympathize. I realize that an overemphasis on cowering before the Lord can lead to a belief in a harsh, impersonal deity, rather than a warm, loving Father, but Christians nowdays don't seem to struggle much with finding God too fearsome. Rather, we have lost the sense of fear and wonder that God, who created the entire universe with a word, voluntarily condescends to us, and allows us to have communion with Him. We needn't approach God with the fear that He'll strike us dead if we somehow misspeak, but neither should we come into His presence as though we are the ones wielding the power, and that He is fortunate that we have granted Him an audience.

Indeed, part of being a follower of God is having a healthy fear of Him. A child loves his father, but does not pretend that they are on equal ground. A good father loves his child dearly, but will punish or chide him, if necessary, and how could a loving father do any less? "Whom the Lord loves, he chastens." (Heb. 12:6) And furthermore, we ought not love our fathers despite their correction, but because of it. "We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence." (Heb. 12:9) If we afforded such respect to our earthly fathers, whom we both feared and loved, should we not also fear our Heavenly Father, who loves us enough to correct us?

'Quando io movo i sospiri a chiamar voi'

2006-12-21T22:25:00.000-08:00

When I utter sighs, in calling out to you,
With the name that Love wrote on my heart,
The sound of its first sweet accents begin
To be heard within the word laudable.
Your regal state, that I next encounter,
Doubles my power for the high attempt;
But: ‘tacit’, the ending cries, ‘since to do her honour
Is for other men’s shoulders, not for yours’.
So, whenever one calls out to you,
The voice itself teaches us to laud, revere,
You, O, lady worthy of all reverence and honour:
Except perhaps that Apollo is disdainful
That mortal tongue can be so presumptuous
As to speak of his eternally green branches.

- Petrarch (The Canzoniere, pm. 5)