Life

“Some stupid people started the idea that because women obviously back up their own people through everything, therefore women are blind and do not see anything. They can hardly have known women. The same women who are ready to defend their men through thick and thin are (in their personal intercourse with man) almost morbidly lucid about the thinness of their excuses or the thickness of his head. A man's friend likes him but leaves him as he is: his wife loves him and is always trying to turn him into somebody else. Women who are utter mystics in their creed are utter cynics in their criticism. Thackeray expressed this well when he made Pendennis' mother, who worshiped her son as a god, yet assume that he would go wrong as a man. She underrated his virtue, though she overrated his value. The devotee is entirely free to criticize; the fanatic can safely be a skeptic. Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

“This at least had come to be my position about all that was called optimism, pessimism, and improvement. Before any cosmic act of reform we must have a cosmic act of allegiance. A man must be interested in life, then he could be disinterested in his views of it. 'My son give me thy heart'; the heart must be fixed on the right thing: the moment we have a fixed heart we have a free hand. I must pause to anticipate an obvious criticism. It will be said that a rational person accepts the world as mixed of good and evil with a decent satisfaction and a decent endurance. But this is exactly the attitude which I maintain to be defective. It is, I know, very common in this age; it was perfectly put in those quiet lines Matthew Arnold which are more piercingly blasphemous than the shrieks of Shopenhauer--

Enough we live:-and if a life,
  With large results so little rife,
           Though bearable, seem hardly worth
             This pomp of worth, this pain of birth.

“I know this feeling fills our epoch, and I think it freezes our epoch. For our Titanic purposes of faith and revolution, what we need is not the cold acceptance of the world as a compromise, but some way in which we can heartily hate and heartily love it. We do not want joy and anger to neutralize each other and produce a surly contentment; we want a fiercer delight and a fiercer discontent. We have to feel the universe at once as an ogre's castle, to be stormed, and yet as our own cottage, to which we can return at evening.

“No one doubts that an ordinary man can get on with this world: but we demand not strength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good with out once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Can he, in short, be at once not only a pessimist and an optimist, but a fanatical pessimist and a fanatical optimist? Is he enough of a pagan to die for the world, and enough of a Christian to die to it? In this combination, I maintain, it is the rational optimist who fails, the irrational optimist who succeeds. He is ready to smash the whole universe for the sake of itself.”

~ G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

From Leo Tolstoy's Ana Karenina

"Oblonsky's tendency and opinions were not his deliberate choice: they came of themselves, just as he did not choose the fashion of his hats or coats but wore those of the current style. Living in a certain social set, and having a desire, such as generally develops with maturity, for some kind of mental activity, he was obliged to hold views, just as he was obliged to have a hat. If he had a reason for preferring Liberalism to the Conservatism of many in his set, it was not that he considered Liberalism more reasonable, but because it suited his manner of life better. The Liberal Party maintained that everything in Russia was bad, and it was a fact that Oblonsky had many debts and decidedly too little money. The Liberal Party said that marriage was an obsolete institution which ought to be reformed ; and family life really gave Oblonsky very little pleasure, forcing him to tell lies and dissemble, which was quite contrary to his nature. The Liberal Party said, or rather hinted, that religion was only good as a check on the more barbarous portion of the population; and Oblonsky really could not stand through even a short church service without pain in his feet, nor understand why one should use all that dreadfully high-flown language about another world while one can live so merrily in this one. Besides, Oblonsky was fond of a pleasant joke, and sometimes liked to perplex a simple-minded man by observing that if you're going to be proud of your ancestry, why stop short at Prince Rurik and repudiate your oldest ancestor-- the ape?”

What ever happened to novels commenting on society and having insights into the culture and the masks we where? Seems the situation has changed much from what was true in mid 1800's Russia! And lest my conservative friends feel excluded, a couple of changes:

Oblonsky's tendency and opinions were not his deliberate choice: they came of themselves, just as he did not choose the fashion of his hats or coats but wore those of the current style. Living in a certain social set, and having a desire, such as generally develops with maturity, for some kind of mental activity, he was obliged to hold views, just as he was obliged to have a hat. If he had a reason for preferring Conservatism to the Liberalism of many of his set, it was not that he considered Conservatism more reasonable, but because it suited his manner of life better. The Conservative Party maintained that everything in Russia was good, and it was a fact that Oblonsky was rather wealthy and his business continued to enjoy success. The Conservative Party claimed that marriage was a divine institution that should always remain; and Oblonsky would have led an incredibly lonesome life were it not for his wife (who would have left him, had she had her way) and children, having estranged himself from friends and family for the sake of business. The Conservative Party said that religion should set the moral standards for society at large; and Oblonsky was flattered by the praise he received from church acquaintances for being a successful yet generous man, often described as benevolent, and plus he enjoyed the idea of having attained eternal life without ever having to think or see anything 'impossible or incongruous in the notion that death which exists for the unbeliever did not exist for him, and that as he possessed complete faith- of the measure of which he himself was the judge- there was no longer any sin in his soul' (this last sentence segment taken from later on in the book, will comment on it later!). Besides, Oblonsky was fond of a pleasant joke and would often ask “Why did God create man before woman? Because He didn't want any suggestions on how to do things!” (OK, pretty lame attempt at the joke, but was having trouble coming up with something else).

Anyway, the point is that people do things just because that is what is being done by society. Know anyone like that?

The Doctrine of Comfort

I don't really think the Church has an official Doctrine of Comfort, or at least not explicitly. But it is not much of a surprise that in a culture that is obsessed with comfort our values and beliefs have at least been somewhat shaped by our felt need of comfort. Comfort in our society is no longer a luxury, but a necessity. It is no longer enough to have our basic needs met. We no longer pray for “our daily bread”, rather we pray for “this and that”. If we do not do whatever we can to put ourselves in a position of comfort then we receive disapproving looks from our peers. And we are taught to praise and congratulate people when they reach a certain standard of comfort...like buying that new luxury car, or that new house, or furniture, or TV, etc.

So what is the Doctrine of Comfort of which I speak? I recently heard a sermon about perseverance preached on the passage in Hebrews that includes the verse, “But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one” (10:32-34). Now I ask the question, why is the author reminding the believers of these “former days”? Is it so they can look back and say to themselves “Look how much progress we have made! We no longer suffer like we did when we were immature believers”? By no means! Rather, is not the author reminding these believers of the youthful passion they once had for the Gospel, for their eagerness to put aside their own interests and desires in order to serve the living God and to encourage their brothers and sisters?

But what is preached in our churches? “What you need is Jesus”! How true, right? Kind of. What is meant by this (if I am discerning) is that if we have Jesus all our problems are solved, and there is no longer a need for suffering. If we have Jesus we need not worry, for he has taken our sins and nailed them to the tree! If we have Jesus everything will be ok. Is that true? No, not in the way it is often meant. Jesus is not a psychological prescription, and the Bible is not a self-help book (I know, I know, it's cliché). In fact, if we are ok then there is something wrong with us. How so? Because we don't live in an ok world! And if we are ok with the not-ok things going on in the world then we are sick beings!

Then what? Perseverance! And there are two kinds of perseverance: 1) Self-centered perseverance, which protests when our property is plundered, refuses to face affliction, and avoids reproach at all costs (and is really no perseverance at all!); and 2) God-centered perseverance, which “endures a hard struggle with sufferings, is sometimes publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and is partners with those so treated; has compassion on those in prison, and joyfully accepts the plundering of property”. Perseverance is not a means whose end is comfort! Rather, perseverance is a choice to endure sufferings and tribulations, knowing Christ will return to redeem this earth and make all things new! We DO suffer and we DO face trials, but we do so with peace, keeping an eternal perspective. “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart! I have overcome the world!” (John 16:33).

Do not let the world, or even you brothers and sisters, tell you not to suffer! We so easily look at those who are wealthy and say “God has surely blessed them”. And this may be true. And when everything is provided for us we thank God; and rightly so! But do you ever think that there are Christians in this world who do starve to death, and who do not have all their needs (not even their basic ones) met? What of them? Are they less than us? I fear that secretly, in a way, we do think that way. What is their sin that God has withheld his provision from them? But no! “Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh” (Luke 6:21).

Therefore, let us enter into suffering! Remember our three brothers in Christ (and their friends and families) who a few months ago were brutally tortured and murdered for their faith. Think of those brothers of ours who are daily thrown into prison for no other reason than that they wish to be faithful ministers of the Gospel. Pray for those brothers and sisters who daily awake with the pangs of hunger in their stomach! And finally, be willing to suffer yourself, detaching yourself from your possessions and worldly pleasures.

"For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. For, 'Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; but my righteous one shall live by faith and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.' But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls" (Hebrews 10:36-39).

Mon Écharde

There is something to be said for having grown up in a small, rural area and having a small group of friends that remain your friends throughout your lifetime. Of course, I wouldn’t know about this.

Every now and then I run across an event that gives me a longing to have grown up (can you long for something that can no longer possibly take place, a thing of the past?) in a small town and to have known the same group of people my whole life. It is a sort of nostalgia for a place that I can truly call home. This occurrence happens at random places, and at times when I do not really expect it. The last time this happened was about a month ago in Hiltons, VA at the Carter Family Fold (believe it or not). The Carter Family Fold is a place, in a very rural area, where whole families go on Saturday evening to listen to live bluegrass music and clog. It seemed that most everyone there knew just about everyone else and that this was a weekly event for most people there.

Another instance that I had this feeling (desire, longing, whatever) happened about five year ago in Rennes, France. I was just traveling through and didn’t know much about the city, so decided to walk around the neighborhood where my lodging was located. I stumbled across a neighborhood party of sorts. There was a band playing traditional music from that region (in the regional language, not French), and people dancing to the music in traditional dance, and serving traditional food. Again, people here all seemed to know each other, and I received a few strange looks as I crashed the party. This has happened several other times (Spain, Italy, of course Mexico, etc.). There was a time while I was in Mexico that I had the urge to learn as much as I could about Spain in order to learn more about “my ancestral heritage” (though it really isn’t my heritage, at least as far as genealogies go). In fact, I have this urge to belong to whichever place I am at the present, no matter where that may be.

Because of my situation— that is, having grown up in a country that was different than my parents’, plus living in a megapolis and moving around quite a bit— I lack a strong sense of belonging to any one place. Again, there is something to be said about having a true sense of belonging (or false sense of “true” belonging?)…knowing where you stand in the community, what your role is, to whom your loyalties belong, etc. There is something to be said for not being familiar with any other culture or way of life but your own. It is so familiar to you that you do not have to think about being a part of it. Everything you do makes perfect sense to you; in fact, you don’t have to think about what you do because there is no question about it. What is that like? I will never know, I have never known. I have always  had to think about what culture I am in and what is appropriate. And as I think about this, I think that has made me extremely self-conscious…wow, that explains a lot (if my observations are accurate). And I know that this will never end, at least not in this fleshly body.

Endlich, das ist mein Kampf…

VA Tech