Each of my last three posts connect to one big theme: American ideology. Each post presented a specific question, and I believe all three are very difficult to answer; meaning, really understanding and agreeing with one political side is going to be hard if you're going to be honest.
In the first of my posts, I suggested that we assess all of American politics not only based on the numbers but also based on the deeper assumptions and beliefs. For example, some republicans believe that survival motivates hard work. This belief motivates their politics (cutting funding on programs which allow people to survive without hard work). I also suggested that in their extreme forms, the democrats' worldview will lead to utopianism because they want to rid the country of some kinds of suffering for all, and republicans' worldview leads to social darwinism, because they're willing to let the weak suffer. Realistically, nobody wants either of those.
Question: Where on the spectrum should we stand between the two worldviews and why?
Second, I explored how democrats and republicans view rights, both the positive kind and negative kind. Both like negative rights; only democrats like positive rights. I also mentioned in passing that republicans want rights that benefit all, and negative rights such as life and liberty do. Positive rights usually make no difference to the well off or make their lives worse because, practically, the well off have the money that the democrats want to tax. So, positive rights don't benefit everybody. This connected to the prior post because democrats, with their utopian leaning, try to expand the scope of rights, while republicans want that scope limited.
Question: Are rights only negative? Are there positive rights, things Americans should be given by the government? If so, what?
Last, I delved into the topic of the American Dream. Ultimately, through the post and conversation below, I came to the conclusion that people who believe in the American Dream either admit that it was never made for all Americans (defined as people on American land, which means the Constitution protects their rights since it is "the law of the land"), or admit that it has failed for a significant group of people because there has always been someone hindered by social barriers. It's always been the case that someone on American land has not been given the boundless society within which to create a great future: Native Americans, Africans and African-Americans, and women (who couldn't vote until less than 100 years ago and still are paid 77 cents per dollar earned by a man for the same job) are a few examples. I'm not saying upward mobility is impossible, only that important parts of the American Dream belief system don't seem to be true or right. (I'll sneak this in here: social darwinism and utopianism are front and center on this debate on who should have access).
Question: The American Dream could exist if every person on this land was of a certain profile, but what if the population was diverse?
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Friday, February 6, 2015
The American Dream and Diversity
I have thought a lot about this, and I'm in a series on American politics and beliefs, so it makes sense to say something about it.
Point 1: What is the American Dream? Wikipedia actually has a solid definition.
"The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few social barriers."
People who believe in this believe that America should be the country that never stops any person from doing exactly what they want to do so long as it is legal. They are also often, but not always, people who are on the Right side of politics because they think society has few barriers...
Point 2: Loyalty to America as a nation is one kind of the American Dream
...They are proud of America; you know it when they call it the "greatest country in the world." They are the folks who are loyal, patriotic, at least moderately nationalistic. My impression is that, at least the nationalistic kind of the American Dream is largely fading.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/28/140869378/americas-love-affair-with-nationalism
Point 3: American population is becoming more diverse and therefore, less loyal to America
I have lived in New York City for a long time. I went to high school here, college here, and now teach high school here. It is incredibly diverse. In the mid-West, diversity doesn't exist as it does in places like New York City and Los Angeles. These cities have become hubs for those who identify strongly with cultures, values and nations that are different, and sometimes even in conflict, with the American ethos...and they are also among the largest cities in the country. There is, in other words, a globalization effect on cultures in America. This article helps explain why.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043
According to Kaplan multiculturalism is “…a system of beliefs and behaviors that recognizes and respects the presence of all diverse groups in an organization or society, acknowledges and values their socio-cultural differences, and encourages and enables their continued contribution within an inclusive cultural context which empowers all within the organization or society."
Point 4: Is there another kind of American Dream other than Loyalty to America? (Can the American Dream coexist with diversity?)
In other words (and this is my big point) while the American Dream seems to encourage people being able to live out their dreams and make a better life for their children, it crumbles when the very people in that nation doubt the American Dream, or believe in things that are in conflict with it. America begins to represent, as a culture, a lot of different worldviews that are native to places outside America where opportunity, freedom, prosperity and a better future are not necessarily valued or sought for because societal limitations are too great of a barrier.
Point 5: Some believe the American Dream needs diversity, and some strongly disagree
What consequences does our answer to the question of Point 4 have for our political ideals?
There are two ways to interpret this trend, and how you do it lands you somewhere on the spectrum we've already been talking about, the one that should indicate your own political assumptions.
1. America has been allowing its true dream to die out by letting too much diversity flourish.
2. The American Dream has never really existed because it's been guarded from the marginalized through societal barriers, and it won't exist, until it's free for everybody (AKA, until it allows for diversity).
P.S. Please don't argue with me about whether Loyalty to America, the American Dream, nationalism and other things I mention in here are good or bad. What I really want to know is whether you think diversity and the American Dream can coexist. If you do, you'll probably lean to answer 2. If not, you'll probably lean to answer 1.
Point 1: What is the American Dream? Wikipedia actually has a solid definition.
"The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few social barriers."
People who believe in this believe that America should be the country that never stops any person from doing exactly what they want to do so long as it is legal. They are also often, but not always, people who are on the Right side of politics because they think society has few barriers...
Point 2: Loyalty to America as a nation is one kind of the American Dream
...They are proud of America; you know it when they call it the "greatest country in the world." They are the folks who are loyal, patriotic, at least moderately nationalistic. My impression is that, at least the nationalistic kind of the American Dream is largely fading.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/28/140869378/americas-love-affair-with-nationalism
Point 3: American population is becoming more diverse and therefore, less loyal to America
I have lived in New York City for a long time. I went to high school here, college here, and now teach high school here. It is incredibly diverse. In the mid-West, diversity doesn't exist as it does in places like New York City and Los Angeles. These cities have become hubs for those who identify strongly with cultures, values and nations that are different, and sometimes even in conflict, with the American ethos...and they are also among the largest cities in the country. There is, in other words, a globalization effect on cultures in America. This article helps explain why.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043
According to Kaplan multiculturalism is “…a system of beliefs and behaviors that recognizes and respects the presence of all diverse groups in an organization or society, acknowledges and values their socio-cultural differences, and encourages and enables their continued contribution within an inclusive cultural context which empowers all within the organization or society."
Point 4: Is there another kind of American Dream other than Loyalty to America? (Can the American Dream coexist with diversity?)
In other words (and this is my big point) while the American Dream seems to encourage people being able to live out their dreams and make a better life for their children, it crumbles when the very people in that nation doubt the American Dream, or believe in things that are in conflict with it. America begins to represent, as a culture, a lot of different worldviews that are native to places outside America where opportunity, freedom, prosperity and a better future are not necessarily valued or sought for because societal limitations are too great of a barrier.
Point 5: Some believe the American Dream needs diversity, and some strongly disagree
What consequences does our answer to the question of Point 4 have for our political ideals?
There are two ways to interpret this trend, and how you do it lands you somewhere on the spectrum we've already been talking about, the one that should indicate your own political assumptions.
1. America has been allowing its true dream to die out by letting too much diversity flourish.
2. The American Dream has never really existed because it's been guarded from the marginalized through societal barriers, and it won't exist, until it's free for everybody (AKA, until it allows for diversity).
P.S. Please don't argue with me about whether Loyalty to America, the American Dream, nationalism and other things I mention in here are good or bad. What I really want to know is whether you think diversity and the American Dream can coexist. If you do, you'll probably lean to answer 2. If not, you'll probably lean to answer 1.
Friday, January 30, 2015
It's My Right?
Let's keep the conversation going. In my post on Obama's 2015 State of the Union, I suggested that democrats try to prevent certain kinds of suffering for all Americans, and use the ideas of rights to get people on board. After all, if something is a right, it pretty much becomes the government's job to provide it for all Americans. Obama called healthcare a right and now it is universal. Maybe you agree with this idea, maybe you don't, or maybe it depends on what kind of rights we're talking about.
Here's a way to see it. All rights can be put under one of two headings: negative rights and positive rights. Negative here doesn't mean bad, it means an American is entitled to not have something bad.
For example, the right to life is a negative right because it's something that the government has to make sure won't be taken away. It doesn't give life. A barrier to life probably implies death and we have police and the military to make sure that's prevented. Both republicans and democrats are totally on board with this. Other negative rights are liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sound familiar?
Positive rights are different. They are things actually given to you, either products or services. For example, you may not have known this but NYC and NYS have "right-to-shelter" policies, which means that at least in theory, everyone in the entire state should be sleeping under a roof every night. Here, republicans and democrats can be on opposite ends. Why, though?
Here's the biggest reason why: positive rights cost money. A lot of money. See for yourself.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/01/19/us/budget-proposal.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
Notice some of the costliest expenses.
- Social Security: $848 billion
- Medicare: $505 billion
- Military: $572 billion
- Vet compensation; $85 billion
- Food Stamps: $82 billion
Because military is required for any country to secure its own people, no side is really going to make a major dent in that budget. Because its dishonorable to both sides to not pay the people who've put their lives on the line, vet comp won't change much. But, you will often see Social Security, Medicare and Food Stamps in the center of budget debates. One reason is that they cost so much. A second reason is that republicans have a much more limited view of positive rights, of rights that are going to benefit SOME. Obviously the military will benefit everyone.
Where do you stand, given that our country is around $17 trillion in debt? Are rights only negative? Are there positive rights, things Americans should be given by the government? If so, what?
Here's a way to see it. All rights can be put under one of two headings: negative rights and positive rights. Negative here doesn't mean bad, it means an American is entitled to not have something bad.
For example, the right to life is a negative right because it's something that the government has to make sure won't be taken away. It doesn't give life. A barrier to life probably implies death and we have police and the military to make sure that's prevented. Both republicans and democrats are totally on board with this. Other negative rights are liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sound familiar?
Positive rights are different. They are things actually given to you, either products or services. For example, you may not have known this but NYC and NYS have "right-to-shelter" policies, which means that at least in theory, everyone in the entire state should be sleeping under a roof every night. Here, republicans and democrats can be on opposite ends. Why, though?
Here's the biggest reason why: positive rights cost money. A lot of money. See for yourself.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/01/19/us/budget-proposal.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
Notice some of the costliest expenses.
- Social Security: $848 billion
- Medicare: $505 billion
- Military: $572 billion
- Vet compensation; $85 billion
- Food Stamps: $82 billion
Because military is required for any country to secure its own people, no side is really going to make a major dent in that budget. Because its dishonorable to both sides to not pay the people who've put their lives on the line, vet comp won't change much. But, you will often see Social Security, Medicare and Food Stamps in the center of budget debates. One reason is that they cost so much. A second reason is that republicans have a much more limited view of positive rights, of rights that are going to benefit SOME. Obviously the military will benefit everyone.
Where do you stand, given that our country is around $17 trillion in debt? Are rights only negative? Are there positive rights, things Americans should be given by the government? If so, what?
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
The 2015 State of the Union: A Perspective on Worldview
Obama just delivered his 2015 State of the Union. In it, he painted an entire picture of what has happened during his presidency. Graduation rates are at all-time highs. Solar power is being utilized more than ever. The stock market has reached record highs. But how should we really assess the speech?
You'll often hear republicans say, "At the end of the day, someone will end up poor. Somebody is going to live the hard life and that's fine. It's not the government's job to solve all of those people's problems." Whether they want to admit it or not, that really is a reflection of a kind of social darwinism.
President Obama's rhetoric ("a fair shot for everybody") and policies (executive decisions on immigration, Obamacare, free community colleges) is a reflection of another kind of worldview: utopianism.
Both of those are the extremes, for sure. But, we can see how the ideas from the fringes seep into the moderate forms, because as a democrat who holds to this ideology, Obama is going to try to abolish certain hardships and suffering from America, like the kind of suffering caused by not having health insurance when you fall ill. That's why he calls healthcare a right, because he believes Americans should not have to suffer in that kind of situation.
So how you assess Obama's speech, and even his presidency, will often boil down to where you lie on the spectrum. At the one extreme is total social darwinism, survival of the fittest and total neglect of the needs of the struggling people. On the other hand is an attempt to create a society free of all suffering and hardship, in other words, a utopia. Now, that may sound nice, but books like Divergent and The Giver show us how severely freedoms can be trampled upon for the sake of everybody's welfare. If you fall on the middle, then which sufferings should be abolished from America? As examples, at least with regard to what the government supports or condemns, we've abolished murder and slavery.
So, where do you stand on the spectrum?
You'll often hear republicans say, "At the end of the day, someone will end up poor. Somebody is going to live the hard life and that's fine. It's not the government's job to solve all of those people's problems." Whether they want to admit it or not, that really is a reflection of a kind of social darwinism.
President Obama's rhetoric ("a fair shot for everybody") and policies (executive decisions on immigration, Obamacare, free community colleges) is a reflection of another kind of worldview: utopianism.
Both of those are the extremes, for sure. But, we can see how the ideas from the fringes seep into the moderate forms, because as a democrat who holds to this ideology, Obama is going to try to abolish certain hardships and suffering from America, like the kind of suffering caused by not having health insurance when you fall ill. That's why he calls healthcare a right, because he believes Americans should not have to suffer in that kind of situation.
So how you assess Obama's speech, and even his presidency, will often boil down to where you lie on the spectrum. At the one extreme is total social darwinism, survival of the fittest and total neglect of the needs of the struggling people. On the other hand is an attempt to create a society free of all suffering and hardship, in other words, a utopia. Now, that may sound nice, but books like Divergent and The Giver show us how severely freedoms can be trampled upon for the sake of everybody's welfare. If you fall on the middle, then which sufferings should be abolished from America? As examples, at least with regard to what the government supports or condemns, we've abolished murder and slavery.
So, where do you stand on the spectrum?
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
On Art Spiegelman
I've taken time during the last week or so to read Mau I and Maus II by Art Spiegelman. It's a graphic novel. No, not like Zane or Blaze: it reads like a comic, but it's a novel; it's not about Superman or Flash.
Quick synopsis:
Art learns from his father, Vladek, the experiences he had during the Nazi invasion of Europe. Being a Jew, you can imagine Vladek endured quite some time in a concentration camp. "Sigh." All throughout my read, it's just "Sigh", and I only follow Art in his own footsteps. I feel where he's coming from.
First, Vladek. There are so many times when he or people he knows are cheated. They try to bribe a Nazi to escape, he shoots them. Fellows Jews throw them out of their houses. Vladek really is a mouse. frantically looking for a safe place. I hate those people who sold out their friends, but I wonder if I rationalize things the way they do, but just about different things. (e.g. "How many slaves work for me?" "Psh, don't worry Yev. They're just slaves. Better slave then starve"). A system is corrupt if it pits the poor against the poor. Sigh.
Second, Art. After all he's heard from his dad, it seems Art suffers from serious guilt issues. He responds by escaping all commitments to his dad, but flocking to him to hear the very story he's laying out for us. I can relate. My mom gets clingy like Vladek. She also is a single parent (Vladek is in some ways). What is it that makes us do that? Individuality (OO LALA) or Individualism (:/). Sigh.
Finally, a random character has his number (the one burned into his arm) written down, which means he'll probably end up in the gas chamber. He starts wailing and crying that night, thinking he will die, The next day they took him. I imagined myself in that spot, imagining that I'd either grieve myself to numbness, or hate the Germans with my whole heart. I pictured returning their slurs to them, "Filthy Nazi, subhuman!" Wouldn't that put me in their shoes? Sigh.
Finally, a random character has his number (the one burned into his arm) written down, which means he'll probably end up in the gas chamber. He starts wailing and crying that night, thinking he will die, The next day they took him. I imagined myself in that spot, imagining that I'd either grieve myself to numbness, or hate the Germans with my whole heart. I pictured returning their slurs to them, "Filthy Nazi, subhuman!" Wouldn't that put me in their shoes? Sigh.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Going Back In Time Pt. 1
Imagine this:
So you're at work, a place where you are allowed to provide for you are your loved ones. You are good at it. Maybe it's scooping ice cream or maybe it's building chairs. But it's plain, and sometimes business doesn't go so well. You've been doing this for years. As you're doing the same routine in a store somewhere, you hear a looming noise. It sounds like a crowd. They're not rioting, just shouting. You could hear that it's a lot of them. In fact, contrary to what you first thought, they sound excited. You don't remember a parade today. It's not a holiday, just a plain old Wednesday. It gets louder and you see the first of this massive crowd of people all cheering and joyful. Meanwhile you have no idea what is going on. By the time the center of the crowd is passing your store, they take up the block side to side. They look like they're speaking to one another, the first half facing backward, the back half facing forward. You let them pass at first, but can't help but go. You lock the door from the outside and run out.
So you're at work, a place where you are allowed to provide for you are your loved ones. You are good at it. Maybe it's scooping ice cream or maybe it's building chairs. But it's plain, and sometimes business doesn't go so well. You've been doing this for years. As you're doing the same routine in a store somewhere, you hear a looming noise. It sounds like a crowd. They're not rioting, just shouting. You could hear that it's a lot of them. In fact, contrary to what you first thought, they sound excited. You don't remember a parade today. It's not a holiday, just a plain old Wednesday. It gets louder and you see the first of this massive crowd of people all cheering and joyful. Meanwhile you have no idea what is going on. By the time the center of the crowd is passing your store, they take up the block side to side. They look like they're speaking to one another, the first half facing backward, the back half facing forward. You let them pass at first, but can't help but go. You lock the door from the outside and run out.
A Love-Seeker Being Transparent For A Bit
I guess finding a good wife boils down to (besides singleness, right age, physical attractiveness and of course faith in Christ) a woman whose mature enough to bear up burdens with me. I want a girl who, when she sees me make mistakes or struggle to figure everything out, she says, "It's okay Yev. I have your back if you have mine. We're not perfect. But I know you and God are close. And knowing He's growing you is really important." Or if I make a mistake, she'd say, "Like I said, we're not perfect. I forgive you. But we do have to work on it, together" ;) with that wink at the end. That's commitment, dedication. I know You love it when we show commitment to You: "Lord, I don't get You, often! But I've never had so much affection before. I've already put my chips on the table so I'm not backing out. But if I fall, I fall into Your hands. And I need You to be the one to be there. Because when no one else knows what I'm going through, You know firsthand."
Sunday, July 22, 2012
How Did They Get There?
Imagine precious young women enslaved to promiscuity. How did they get there? Perhaps because they had bad parents. Perhaps they weren't taught otherwise. Perhaps one was raped. Bullied in school? But no one starts sleeping around early and thinks, "I am amazing and loved, and I have a purpose in life that will change other lives. Yes, life is amazing. And I'm not perfect, but I am precious." Remind me this when I lust. For behind my pleasures is a deep and complex world of needs, hurts, yearnings, passions, sins. There's always more to the person than impulses. No woman just wants to perform oral sex, or give her virginity up. A woman wants her needs met. She wants acceptance, love, the arms of a trustworthy person, the chance to believe in something that doesn't make her compromise her worth.
Meditations on "The Dark Knight" Pt 2
...So with teary eyes they beg their beloved leader, "Don't go!" They weep at his cross. For anyone with a sense of tenderness, "The Dark Knight's" ending will be a shadow. He bears on his back the bad news of human nature. They couldn't handle the truth. Not the truth of Harvey Dent's guilt, nor the truth of our own. Why do we kill our saviors. Is our self-image worth it? Is Gotham's darkness ever going to go? But when it's messiah must take the guilt of the transgressors among them, what does that say about us? It says we could handle the truth we wanted to hear; we could only take what justified our existence. if it made us right. If it cleared our conscience. If it met our deepest needs. Would we relinquish all that to make ourselves saviors? What if we could only have one? Either we'd admit our human nature and receive the savior or condemn ourselves by shunning his truth. Are we good enough to save ourselves or do we need our own "dark knight"?
Just like the apostles, we beg Jesus not to die. If he does it, we must too! "Please, don't save us through your death. If you do, we must save others by dying as well. I don't want to die!" Jesus' death, though a death to us, is our only assurance for an abundant life. And we face these opposites as well. To us they translate as such:
1) Wanting to accept the love that saves me but deny the same love that witnesses to my fallen human nature;
2) Wanting the man that saves but fearing having to tread the road he walked.
Just like the apostles, we beg Jesus not to die. If he does it, we must too! "Please, don't save us through your death. If you do, we must save others by dying as well. I don't want to die!" Jesus' death, though a death to us, is our only assurance for an abundant life. And we face these opposites as well. To us they translate as such:
1) Wanting to accept the love that saves me but deny the same love that witnesses to my fallen human nature;
2) Wanting the man that saves but fearing having to tread the road he walked.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Meditations on "The Dark Knight" Pt. 1
As I continue to meditate on the strong messianic themes in "The Dark Knight" series, I try to take that same sense of overwhelming emotions and existential crisis and apply it to life. Let's remember why Batman had to take the blame. Why can't we people avoid abusing truth of Harvey's guilt? Why do we take a mile when given an inch? Why do we insist on justifying ourselves, our existence and our actions, even when it forces someone (Batman) to suffer so we could have peace? Why do we kill our saviors and persecute our prophets? As I think about how the apostles felt, I can only imagine the crisis. As Jesus, in the latter half of his ministry began foretelling of his death, they objected. Not knowing that Jesus saves through his death, they think, "You can't die Lord. You are our savior, our restorer." Without the moral fortitude to follow him to Jerusalem's cross, they stop. They deny him. So two opposites converge in these two contexts:
1) the opposite of loving the savior against fleeing only to worsen his condition;
2) the opposite of wanting salvation and not wanting the good man to die, which alone allows for salvation...
1) the opposite of loving the savior against fleeing only to worsen his condition;
2) the opposite of wanting salvation and not wanting the good man to die, which alone allows for salvation...
Friday, July 20, 2012
Are We Beyond Saving?
So I open up Yahoo and find out that a Colorado man of 24 went on a shooting spree in a movie theatre that released "The Dark Knight Rises" and killed at least twelve people and injuring around fifty. I thought to myself, "Oh my God, what is going on!" I may say nothing that hasn't already been said, but that is just terrible. He's shot a load of people...now what? I mean, what was his point? It must have not been a good one. What I'm really trying to say i that evil is just overwhelming sometimes. In "Batman Begins", Bruce is trained by a group of individuals who think Gotham City is beyond saving. They see justice as the uncompromising destruction of evil by force. Because injustice cannot be tolerated, they plan to destroy all of Gotham, a city so ravaged with crime that it's even its judges are involved with the mob. What does this shooting say? Besides evoking the Columbine massacre also in Colorado, it is a tragedy that falls right in line with the Oklahoma Bomber, the destruction of the World Trade Center, etc. What causes this? Will this ever stop? Are we really beyond saving?
Thursday, July 12, 2012
A Prophecy
"'There are new men...they propose to destroy everything and begin with cannibalism. Fools! They didn't ask my advice! I maintain that nothing need be destroyed, that we only need to destroy the idea of God in man, that's how we have to set to work. It's that, that we must begin with. Oh, blind race of man who have no understanding! As soon as men have all denied God- periods, will come to pass- the old conception of the universe will fall of itself without cannibalism and what's more the old morality, and everything will begin anew. Men will unite to take from life all it can give, but only for joy and happiness in the present world. Man will be lifted up with a spirit of divine Titanic pride and the man-god will appear. Extending his conquest of nature by his will and his science, man will feel such lofty joy from hour to hour that it will make up for all his old dreams of the joys of Heaven. Everyone will know that he is moral and will accept death proudly and sincerely like a god. His pride will teach him that it's useless for him to grieve at life's being a moment, and he will love his brother without need of reward. Love will be sufficient only for a moment of life, but this very consciousness will intensify its fire, which is now dissipated in dreams of eternal love beyond the grave...
"Is is possible that such a period will ever come? If it does, everything is determined and man is settled forever. But since, owing to man's stupidity, this cannot come about for at least a thousand years, everyone who recognizes truth now may legitimately order his life as he pleases, on the new principles. In that sense, 'all things are lawful' for him.
-Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The Brothers Karamazov
"Is is possible that such a period will ever come? If it does, everything is determined and man is settled forever. But since, owing to man's stupidity, this cannot come about for at least a thousand years, everyone who recognizes truth now may legitimately order his life as he pleases, on the new principles. In that sense, 'all things are lawful' for him.
-Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The Brothers Karamazov
Monday, July 9, 2012
The Line Where We Break
I saw a woman walking on the train today (or was it the bus?). She pulled down her shirt as her stomach was showing. I imagine this duality existing in most humans: wanting to do almost anything to receive some kind of love and acceptance, and the limits shame impose on what we'd do to receive that acceptance. Some have forgotten all shame, and others all love. But most of us deal with the middle sort. We yearn for real love, rushing to send ourselves into the hands of irresponsible people, all in the name of love. I must admit. I am guilty of this. I find myself thinking about how Ill make up for God's failures. I'll expect to fail or fall, so that if God won't come through, I'll expect it. It'll be tucked away somewhere, not too far down my mind. But it's You who makes up for my weakness. You welcome me with open arms, telling me all I have to do is come. There's no need to be in shame, no need to degrade my self. ("You are reaching something that is beating. I can't believe I never noticed my heart before." - Mute Math).
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Purpose-> God Is: What God Is Not
God is not a meerkat. Now, though most would think such a commonsense statement deserves little attention, let's not be so presumptuous. For some not only think God created the meerkat, or that a meerkat is a god, but that all is god, including meerkats. There are so many conceptions of God, though reasonably much fewer concerning meerkats; but all these conceptions are so different in crucial respects, it simply cannot be so that all are correct.
Similarly, such claims of 'God the meerkat' are far less farfetched to the worshiper of created things. Such a one might tell me, "No, you have got it all wrong. God is a Sun- or Moon, or some zodiac constellation." I'd respond as such, "I joke my friend. For God is none of those things!"
What I am doing here is presenting the Christian conception of God, and it's deep-rooted contrasts with other belief systems.
Any worshiper of created things, what I'll call a pagan, has fallen far from the Christian marker. By created things I mean things thought to be created by God and things certainly created by humans. I mean the physical universe just as much as I mean Zeus, or countless other gods of ancient mythology. It seems strange that the air around me or the voiceless star beyond would rule me. But I could believe in something that is both around me and beyond. For nothing pagan is like this. Mythology is purely of things beyond, and creation-worship is purely of things around. Who could you call on when the god of agriculture wanted your son for breakfast? Some people even gave into those demands, though who made them is unclear. What is clear is that it was not God. It is not God who sends out solar flares from 93 million miles away nor who pulls in the tides. Christ's words reiterate this: "The Lord your God is one Lord." And equally powerful, "God is spirit."
And to just swiftly make the assertion and keep on walking, God is not dead. He is not dead in the ontological sense (meaning He actually died, and was previously alive), nor in the evolutionary sense (namely that the evolution of man has discovered that God is incompatible with reality). A wise psalmist, calling God the living, even sought an appointment with Him, saying, "My soul thirsts for God, the living God. When can I go meet with Him?" All that we know about ourselves and the world, all the most common questions that men's minds tremble to answer, are answered when we meet God.
Deep in the herculean heart of Asia are witnesses to different things, all of which I only discuss for the sake of their differences with Christianity, not with each other. However, to be a Hindu is often to not be a Buddhist or Jain. For Hinduism has so many concepts of God. Christians certainly disagree on certain details, but to denounce a universally believed doctrine would certainly cause you to denounce Christianity as a whole. Some Hindus believe that all is God, others that there is no God. No such distinction can be made in Christianity while retaining the label; if you believe that God doesn't exist, you cannot be a Christian. To conclude, any conception of God that allows the possibility of His nonexistence is at odds with the Christian conception of God.
Buddhists are essentially in the group called 'God Is Dead.' Buddha saw all questions concerning God or creation as worthless. Therefore, since Christians do not believe such questions are worthless, but because God exists, are of ultimate worth, these two world views are incompatible. Jainism as well denies a divine creator.
I must point out here that my purpose here is not firstly apologetic, meaning I'm not here t make a case for Christianity, but to discover the purposes of God's most important choices.
Monday, August 22, 2011
A Meaning For Everything
I heard a phrase repeating itself around me, like a confirmation reconfirming itself. I'd imagine if I did nothing with it, I'd be that man the joke is made of; the one who drowned when the divinely sent opportunities were ignored. Perhaps it'd be told something like this. "A young man loved the knowledge of God. So, God offered Him the Message. The man passed it down. Then God offered doctrine. Still no response. Finally God offered purpose. After that, as I hope the ending would go, the young man's life was changed." Certainly success would turn the joke on its head, but it would still be a joke. Rather than the Devil telling it, it's me telling it to him.
Anyways, the phrase was spoken as the following: "When you don't know the purpose for something, abuse is inevitable." Perfection is always one, and deviation is always many. And for an awkwardly, obviously crippled species as ours, deviation is practically the norm. And my diction here is precise. We are crippled for we once walked right, and the deviation is only practically normal for us, because it is never spiritually normal. In practice, we see that is appears normal, but in the heart the damage lingers undeniably.
As I pondered this timeless fundamental, it's clarity and richness in sense allowed me to adopt it as a personal tenet at once. After reading Doctrine by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Greshears, and completing the book's study guide, I had a curious idea to merge these two studies. Chapter three of Doctrine, for example, was "Image: God Loves." Out of this curiosity, I wondered why. What is the purpose of God's image, and what does it have to do with love? Or, what are the purposes of God's judgment against sin?
This is my answer to the joke. My answers to the curiosity concerning the divine...man, and the good news surrounding Him, are going to spell themselves out here. I will pick God's brain and investigate with child-like sincerity the point of God's most important choices. For everything He's done has meaning, has purpose. And everything we do should too.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
A Bride to A Husband
Every Man's Battle, written by Fred Stoeker and Stephen Arterburn, shifted even what I thought were the most human passages in the Bible to a God-centered perspective. In a specific instance, they did it with The Songs of Solomon.
How beautiful you are, my darling!
Oh, how beautiful!
Oh, how beautiful!
Your eyes behind your veil are doves.
Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon;
your mouth is lovely.
your mouth is lovely.
You are altogether beautiful, my darling;
there is no flaw in you.
there is no flaw in you.
You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your perfume
more than any spice!
How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your perfume
more than any spice!
Your head crowns you like Mount Carmel.
Your hair is like royal tapestry;
the king is held captive by its tresses.
Your hair is like royal tapestry;
the king is held captive by its tresses.
How beautiful you are and how pleasing,
my love, with your delights!
my love, with your delights!
Songs 4:1,3,7,9,10;7:5,6
The authors also asked if I, in reading this excerpt, felt Christ's desire for me. And I in return.
This was my reply.
The scripture almost seems purified by Christ. I see Jesus holding me, like a newborn baby, telling me softly I've no flaw as His new creation. I sense Him stare in my eyes, and as His heart beat quickens, He gives it all to me and, winking, asks me how I took it so gently from Him. I picture Him stroke my hair back, a Father like a husband and child as a bride, captivated by my tresses and cherishing my locks. Oh Christ loves me so much! He stands firm as the Father of fathers, holding me when I sleep. I couldn't wish for a better God to share a covenant with. He certainly is salvation come true.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Unpardonable Sin
"Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” - Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.
A hundred years ago, G. K. Chesterton said in his book Orthodoxy. "...for I thought (and still think) sincere pessimism the unpardonable sin." One may first ask, "Well who's right?" My question is, "Are these guys talking about two different things or not?"
The story here begins in the third chapter of the Bible's second (Mark's) Gospel. Amidst trying to have a meal with His followers, Jesus is thoroughly interrupted by a crowd and some "teachers of the law." In the two chapters prior, Jesus gets baptized, fasts forty days and shuts Satan up, gets some disciples, drives out demons, heals a bunch of people and prays in between, meets Matthew, dines with sinners, gets interrogated about fasting AND the Sabbath, completes His search of all twelve disciples, and finally, where we begin, is accused by his own family and the religious teachers. So we can tell that his relationship with these individuals has started off very shaky.
Speaking carelessly, they said Jesus was possessed by Beelzebul, basically the Hebrew word for Satan. Then Jesus made that statement I began with. Essentially, the teachers called God the devil.
Earlier, I also suggested a possible parity of sincere pessimism and the instance of the blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Firstly, let's be clear of what sincere pessimism is, as distinct from insincere pessimism. The latter is displayed when one, in expecting good over bad, grants his hope onto another. In doing so, he's also displaying faith and love. However tainted with pessimism this hope may be, the worst it can become is insincere pessimism. It happens when an older sister lets her constantly clumsy younger brother do the chore he's been begging to do, hoping but doubting he'll succeed. Sincere pessimism is the hopeless, doubtless grimace of caring no longer, believing no longer nor loving any longer.
Sincere pessimism is the inability to doubt in another because of the inability to hope in another. It is when one cannot even fathom the success of a particular other. It is when a parent could hope nothing for their own child. It is when a person tells another, "Thank God I'm not like you."
Again, were Christ and Chesterton referring to two different things? What kind of person must one be to look God in the face and see a devil? A sincerely pessimistic person. They must feel so hopeless, that they'd doubt God would love them enough to die for them. They would first believe a self-proclaimed Messiah to be a devil than to believe God would put humility before reputation. For you to see sin in the sinless, to curse the blessed, to rebuke the only thing in this entire universe capable of saving your soul, is for you to give up all hope.
The Bible is not a story of fairy tales, but imagination, not make-believe but of what makes belief. To look God in the face and see the unimaginable love, or to look God in the face and utter the unpardonable slander.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The Complete God
It is certainly easy to end up falling victim to erroneous decisions, dangerous people and hence, difficult circumstances. It's not a stretch to say God Himself has faced grim circumstances. Nevertheless He retains His perfection. For us people who know nothing but imperfection, it gives us an opportunity to see how perfect God really is. Inherent in His perfection is completeness, for perfection implies He lacks nothing and has never lacked. Hence He is whole; hence He is complete.
For the first fifteen hundred years of His relationship to Israel, it is clear that God's revelations were limited in context. There were always only specific people who'd directly commune with God, people such as Moses, the Aaronic priesthood and after their sin of the golden calf, the Levites. But God was known to an exclusive group who managed the holiness of the people, who were even commanded to bear the iniquity of the nation by means of certain rites (Leviticus 10:17).
Now however, with the New Covenant, we know what God is like. Firstly, according to Colossians 1:15, Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. Therefore, we have been revealed the true nature of what it means to be divine. Secondly, we have an "advocate", a sort of invisible social worker guiding us (John 15:26). This "advocate" is the Holy Spirit.
And what do we learn about God? We learn that God knows true freedom, firsthand. For being a complete character, needing nothing, there is no circumstance which can take Him outside of Himself. This is the true freedom. Take a person, who believes freedom is circumstantial. But all I'd have to do is place him back in that circumstance and he'd be bound once again. This freedom is false because it is temporal. God urges us to a permanent freedom, one that is unending and unchanging.
It is from this completeness that we get the "lacking nothing" of James 1. It is from completeness that we get Matthew 5:48, a highlight of the Sermon on the Mount. Be perfect as God. Be complete. Be whole. Lack nothing.
From a personal perspective, dealing with sexual impurity( in New York City!) is a perfect example. I must master completeness in character or else fall to sin each time temptation arises.
A complete person can be tossed into a storm of temptation but walk out unscathed. What is your weakness? Flaw? What's holding you back? Without gaining "lacking-nothing", how do you expect to meet that need?
And what do we learn about God? We learn that God knows true freedom, firsthand. For being a complete character, needing nothing, there is no circumstance which can take Him outside of Himself. This is the true freedom. Take a person, who believes freedom is circumstantial. But all I'd have to do is place him back in that circumstance and he'd be bound once again. This freedom is false because it is temporal. God urges us to a permanent freedom, one that is unending and unchanging.
It is from this completeness that we get the "lacking nothing" of James 1. It is from completeness that we get Matthew 5:48, a highlight of the Sermon on the Mount. Be perfect as God. Be complete. Be whole. Lack nothing.
From a personal perspective, dealing with sexual impurity( in New York City!) is a perfect example. I must master completeness in character or else fall to sin each time temptation arises.
A complete person can be tossed into a storm of temptation but walk out unscathed. What is your weakness? Flaw? What's holding you back? Without gaining "lacking-nothing", how do you expect to meet that need?
Friday, December 31, 2010
Character & Circumstance
Cost. Struggle. Trial. Endurance. These are some of the Bible's most pervasive themes. Other common themes are an abundant life, glory, joy and power. Interestingly enough, all of these themes flowed from the character of Christ to form a single story, one tome of accumulated texts to speak of one and the same being: God. God knows both joy and struggle. He knows abundance, and its cost. God knows trial and glory; endurance and power. They are not two distinct sets of traits, but linked outcomes when circumstance meets character.
In fact, what's happening here is a dynamic mix of character and circumstance. Underlying this mix is a God-initiated principle: the best way to eliminate some enemies is to make them your allies. On a person-to-person level, we can see scripture illustrating this in Mark 12:31, when we are told to love our neighbors as we love ourselves; in Luke 10:25-37, where we see an example of a man helping his ethnic rival; and also in Matthew 5:44, where we are told to love our enemies. But we also see this principle in person-to-situation relations, or as previously called, character-to-circumstance. For too often, we find our circumstances being our greatest hindrance or enemy; something which must be defeated and overcome, not worked with. But God has again applied this principle in our lives with the power of our love for him. In Romans 8:28, we are introduced to this idea that all of the things that go on in our lives are now involved, by God, in a plan to better our lives. Our circumstances turn from enemy to ally.
The joyful life is not absent of struggle. Glory is not absent of trial. Heck! In God's plan, cost even contributes to abundance (Luke 6:38). Peace is not absence of war. We must not confuse character traits with circumstances. Peace isn't a situation, it's a character trait. Struggle is a situation; joy is a trait. It's not the case that a good life isn't difficult and a difficult life, not good. Not at all! Difficult circumstances only highlight God's goodness.
On the 26th of December, Isaiah and I met up after service. Along with much of our church's youth group, we packed into the newly opened IHOP. Throughout the day, a blizzard had been hovering over the region and over a foot of snow was expected. I decided I'd have an easier time commuting to his house than going home, so I took my brother up on his offer to sleep over. Waiting for the bus, Isaiah prayed several times, and most genuinely, that a bus come and deliver us from the snow. We were being peppered all over our bare faces, the wind was chilling our bodies and the snow below cooled our feet beyond comfort. Eventually, I couldn't help but pray that at least, we'd get out of the circumstance learning something new and valuable. Soon after, Isaiah burst into praise and two-step! Often, we had to mumble and grown through the Hillsong lyrics unbeknown to us, but we praised right through it. I began clapping and within only a few moments, two b6 buses appeared. Isaiah and I definitely took something away from that.
What we took away, I realized, was affirmed by the Bible. Tough times are often the best times. Firstly, as indicated by Ephesians 2:9, any given situation that you need saving is another chance for God to prove Himself. If He were to make the situation bearable or solvable to you, you'd be stuck in that same thinking that you can do it all by yourself. But it is God who is worthy of the glory, He who deserves the credit. Secondly, struggles gives us a chance to mature. In Romans 5:1-5, Paul illustrates how tribulation builds character in the form of patience, experience and hope. In James 1:2-4, it is written that even temptation builds character by strengthening our faith. Our job is to resist by believing in the Lord and obeying. Finally, struggle and endurance increase you Kingdom value. In Mark 10:31, Jesus says that the last will be the first. In 1 Peter 2, we read that when we endure and struggle as a result of a good choice, that is commendable to God. For that's the example Christ left, to accept suffering as a consequence of good decision-making.
However, in Mark 10:30, we also read that along with a hundredfold blessing comes persecution. Persecution does not eliminate the good life, it enhances it. This is a call to be the type of person who neither looks for trouble nor runs from it. To be the kind of individual who sets up principles of love, integrity and faith. That in a world of sheer darkness, those bearing light won't hide it, but will provide beacons of guidance and love. For we know that bad things happen when good people do nothing.
In fact, what's happening here is a dynamic mix of character and circumstance. Underlying this mix is a God-initiated principle: the best way to eliminate some enemies is to make them your allies. On a person-to-person level, we can see scripture illustrating this in Mark 12:31, when we are told to love our neighbors as we love ourselves; in Luke 10:25-37, where we see an example of a man helping his ethnic rival; and also in Matthew 5:44, where we are told to love our enemies. But we also see this principle in person-to-situation relations, or as previously called, character-to-circumstance. For too often, we find our circumstances being our greatest hindrance or enemy; something which must be defeated and overcome, not worked with. But God has again applied this principle in our lives with the power of our love for him. In Romans 8:28, we are introduced to this idea that all of the things that go on in our lives are now involved, by God, in a plan to better our lives. Our circumstances turn from enemy to ally.
The joyful life is not absent of struggle. Glory is not absent of trial. Heck! In God's plan, cost even contributes to abundance (Luke 6:38). Peace is not absence of war. We must not confuse character traits with circumstances. Peace isn't a situation, it's a character trait. Struggle is a situation; joy is a trait. It's not the case that a good life isn't difficult and a difficult life, not good. Not at all! Difficult circumstances only highlight God's goodness.
On the 26th of December, Isaiah and I met up after service. Along with much of our church's youth group, we packed into the newly opened IHOP. Throughout the day, a blizzard had been hovering over the region and over a foot of snow was expected. I decided I'd have an easier time commuting to his house than going home, so I took my brother up on his offer to sleep over. Waiting for the bus, Isaiah prayed several times, and most genuinely, that a bus come and deliver us from the snow. We were being peppered all over our bare faces, the wind was chilling our bodies and the snow below cooled our feet beyond comfort. Eventually, I couldn't help but pray that at least, we'd get out of the circumstance learning something new and valuable. Soon after, Isaiah burst into praise and two-step! Often, we had to mumble and grown through the Hillsong lyrics unbeknown to us, but we praised right through it. I began clapping and within only a few moments, two b6 buses appeared. Isaiah and I definitely took something away from that.
What we took away, I realized, was affirmed by the Bible. Tough times are often the best times. Firstly, as indicated by Ephesians 2:9, any given situation that you need saving is another chance for God to prove Himself. If He were to make the situation bearable or solvable to you, you'd be stuck in that same thinking that you can do it all by yourself. But it is God who is worthy of the glory, He who deserves the credit. Secondly, struggles gives us a chance to mature. In Romans 5:1-5, Paul illustrates how tribulation builds character in the form of patience, experience and hope. In James 1:2-4, it is written that even temptation builds character by strengthening our faith. Our job is to resist by believing in the Lord and obeying. Finally, struggle and endurance increase you Kingdom value. In Mark 10:31, Jesus says that the last will be the first. In 1 Peter 2, we read that when we endure and struggle as a result of a good choice, that is commendable to God. For that's the example Christ left, to accept suffering as a consequence of good decision-making.
However, in Mark 10:30, we also read that along with a hundredfold blessing comes persecution. Persecution does not eliminate the good life, it enhances it. This is a call to be the type of person who neither looks for trouble nor runs from it. To be the kind of individual who sets up principles of love, integrity and faith. That in a world of sheer darkness, those bearing light won't hide it, but will provide beacons of guidance and love. For we know that bad things happen when good people do nothing.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Uncondtional Love: Self-Directed
With the second great commandment, Jesus uncovered a powerful truth. He says, "And love you neighbor as you love yourself." As my colleague Isaiah Peoples pointed out to me, this is really a statement of two commands in one. For what good is such a command, proclaimed by a man calling for peace, joy, salvation and love, if the person does not love themselves?
About one week ago, I sat at a square table in a McDonald's with three other colleagues. We all carry our problems with us, and in some ways they make us who we are. And as we sat there, beginning to discuss the burden of past relationships, one of these humbly, shamelessly and openly expressed how bad his grief had gotten. He'd attempted suicide four times! He and I discussed the element of guilt and how the mistakes we've made have had such unfortunate consequences.
As we continued, Kelley, a humble and experienced man opened us up to some powerful insight. Even though we've made such terrible choices, taken the easy route so many times, hurt so many people, we should nevertheless love ourselves. We each should have significant respect for ourselves. What was he talking about? Unconditional love towards oneself.
The Bible calls for a level of self-love and appreciation for each and every one of us. Mark 12:31 is a call not only to love those around you but to love dearly yourself as well. If your self-worth is so minimal, this command is essentially meaningless to you.
In Luke 7:36-50, a woman cast as a sinner comes to Jesus, washing his feet with her tears and sprinkling them with rare fragrance. As the Lord said, her sins were many. But rather than busting her own chops and talking herself carelessly out of a blessing, she met to worship God the Son.
There is a pervasive problem throughout the human race: people have trouble loving and being loved. We are unrealistically hard on ourselves. And by trying to meet the standards of the world, undo the work of the Holy Spirit. In Romans 6, Paul calls for us to leave our lives of sin for freedom. Freedom is a life without guilt, without shame, without fear, without contempt. Freedom is the filter which creates an unpolluted life, for others and yourself. For those of you who struggle under the burden of low self-esteem and self-concept, it may be that you give, but fail to allow others to give back to you. Fear, guilt, shame and contempt can have such consequences. As you forgive others, forgive yourself. As you love others, love yourself. There is a new truth to testify in. That we have been declared innocent. That God's freedom is greater than all bounds, His grace is greater than all burdens, His blessing greater than all curses. His truth testifies for our great importance.
At the heart of Kelley's true and touching words were this freedom. A freedom to move passed your regrets, to turn them into mistakes that were learned from instead. It was a message to remember that you were created by the greatest being ever and saved by Him as well. Saved from having to crush yourself and others under the weight of punishment, penalty and prison. A message called unconditional love.
About one week ago, I sat at a square table in a McDonald's with three other colleagues. We all carry our problems with us, and in some ways they make us who we are. And as we sat there, beginning to discuss the burden of past relationships, one of these humbly, shamelessly and openly expressed how bad his grief had gotten. He'd attempted suicide four times! He and I discussed the element of guilt and how the mistakes we've made have had such unfortunate consequences.
As we continued, Kelley, a humble and experienced man opened us up to some powerful insight. Even though we've made such terrible choices, taken the easy route so many times, hurt so many people, we should nevertheless love ourselves. We each should have significant respect for ourselves. What was he talking about? Unconditional love towards oneself.
The Bible calls for a level of self-love and appreciation for each and every one of us. Mark 12:31 is a call not only to love those around you but to love dearly yourself as well. If your self-worth is so minimal, this command is essentially meaningless to you.
In Luke 7:36-50, a woman cast as a sinner comes to Jesus, washing his feet with her tears and sprinkling them with rare fragrance. As the Lord said, her sins were many. But rather than busting her own chops and talking herself carelessly out of a blessing, she met to worship God the Son.
There is a pervasive problem throughout the human race: people have trouble loving and being loved. We are unrealistically hard on ourselves. And by trying to meet the standards of the world, undo the work of the Holy Spirit. In Romans 6, Paul calls for us to leave our lives of sin for freedom. Freedom is a life without guilt, without shame, without fear, without contempt. Freedom is the filter which creates an unpolluted life, for others and yourself. For those of you who struggle under the burden of low self-esteem and self-concept, it may be that you give, but fail to allow others to give back to you. Fear, guilt, shame and contempt can have such consequences. As you forgive others, forgive yourself. As you love others, love yourself. There is a new truth to testify in. That we have been declared innocent. That God's freedom is greater than all bounds, His grace is greater than all burdens, His blessing greater than all curses. His truth testifies for our great importance.
At the heart of Kelley's true and touching words were this freedom. A freedom to move passed your regrets, to turn them into mistakes that were learned from instead. It was a message to remember that you were created by the greatest being ever and saved by Him as well. Saved from having to crush yourself and others under the weight of punishment, penalty and prison. A message called unconditional love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)