Vignette: Mare

Evening promenade ambulations were the always the most calming. The trees lined the right and the sand on the left. The sea reached out for the shore, pursuing and receding. How many people had looked out in just this way over the centuries? Caught up in an idle thought, the germ of a reflective cascade, the bud of a mental exercise through the high-vaulted halls of philosophy.

Perhaps it takes a certain disposition to appreciate this environment. A quieter, reflective temperament with a grandiose capacity for trying to comprehend the mysteries of this world. The sentiment charmed. It repelled any thoughts of loneliness, replacing it with a profound solidarity with all those who must once have stood here, in tranquil contemplation. It was an order, implicit, a gathering of kindred spirits who meet each other not in person, in speech and actions, but in prose or verse. The records of their hearts laid bare for another sensitive soul to imbibe, empathise with, and express in yet another flourish of creativity.

On more transcendent days, it seemed that the spirit of that quiescent community was closer to the sea, the land and the sky than to any other human organisation. How many regimes, triumphs and tragedies had this sea observed? Older, older still. How many births, deaths, frustrations and elations had been absorbed into the memory of the sea? Absorbed and absolved in the sublime depths that deny any attempt at exploration. Like the subconscious of the super-consciousness of humanity, which discovers a rare listener out of every few thousand individuals, who tries to give it a voice for the next explorer. 

The exclusivity of the organisation was a source of clandestine pride, but its reality could never be certain. Perhaps such perspective was all too common, disguised in innumerable variations, lenses and distortions into the full spectrum of superficial personalities. Or perhaps it was a phantasm, an ideal borne of a romantic hope of easing isolation, one too acutely felt by asocial individuals, read into the texts and expressions of others. 

At other times, the sea lost its symbolism, snapping back to a churning body of water, unconscious, unobservant and unfeeling. It reclaimed its position as a sublime force with mastery over a presumptuous humanity. It broke its mental alliance with a callous fickleness and left the observer stranded and alone. No longer a comfort, but a font of unease.

It would not do. The observer grants his own interpretation and voice to the voiceless, and Oceanus, for all his pretences, could be neither friend nor foe to the community that personified him with recall, and attempted to co-opt into their quest for questions and answers. It was a tool, a platform from which to explore realities beyond the physical, but only as much as a mind was willing to grant it metaphysical meaning by analogies and association.

A Reluctant Road

An ironic turn of events does reveal itself through the contents of my posts in recent months. When I started my creative oeuvre, it was intended to be a synthesis of all the knowledge I valued, and sensed that I wanted to include in a grand design. A world in my image, a playground of the mind, a canvas for the emotions, realm where I could create the creator and explore the implications of the rules I had set.

While writing, I researched, I thought, and my investigations began to take precedence over the actual opus itself. I had sought to reconcile multiple truths, and in that course, I found some beliefs were not worth maintaining. Veritas took precedence. Scriptio continued in ill disciplined streams.

That which I had determined to do changed. Now, the sub-creation became a vessel, centrum sapientiae scientiaeque. It had to embody the final understanding, it had to contain as much as it could possibly contain without being reality, for my perception of reality had grown to be far fuller than versatile shadow that dwelt within my soul.

I see now that I will be bound. Trapped between a journey of discovery and a process of expression, in a constant tension, I am strung. The magnum opus must concede to my own 'De Civitate Dei', 'Summa Theologiae' and 'Institutio Christianae Religionis'. Perhaps one edition will be insufficient.

De Progressione Hominis

Since the age of exploration, the world has been wondering what catapulted the nations of western Europe to global dominance. We have come up with several theories, explanations for the narrative of modern history, and the fruits of those stories are evident to those who will take the time to delve further than the coasting observer. Reading the book 'Discipling Nations: The Power of Truth to Transform Cultures', I feel I finally have an answer to this enduring question which makes the most logical sense.

First, let's examine the other answers which have been submitted though, for sake of comparison. No doubt those who have lent credence will assume that my understanding of these theories from the readable books meant for the layperson are insufficient, but I ask for your toleration my amateurish philosophising. In decades past, the primary candidate for white supremacy was a biological superiority. The nations of Europe represented the cream of the human crop, the apex of evolutionary development. The Japhethites took their place in the great chain of being and had the right to exercise their ascendancy to accelerate the natural current of mother nature. We observe the terrible fruit of such a story, with hundreds of native peoples being treated as less than human, studied to determine if they represented the fabled missing link, roped into slavery and exploited as if they were included as objects of Genesis 1:28. 

The ripening of this cogitative mode was in Nazism and other similar ideologies, which seized upon the pseudoscience of nature in red tooth and claw to justify unprecedented genocides and launch a eugenics program. Now we deal with a tamed version of evolution, still distorting the way we understand the world, but not to the extreme degree which it once did. Any suggestion that human development is linked to evolutionary advantages is now met with extreme aversion, and certainly not deemed politically correct.

So now we look for alternatives, and one that had appealed to me before was suggested by Jared Diamond in 'Guns, Germs and Steel' and further elucidated by Ian Morris in 'Why the West Rules: For Now'. Their suggestions about the influence of geography and biogeography, I feel, still cannot be entirely disqualified, and have much merit. The argument, in very general brushes, is that all societies have the same baseline humans; there are no biological advantages or handicaps as a whole, and certainly not be race. It is almost the antithesis of the toxic racial theory that was once so dominant in its aversion to any mention of genetic differences among Homo sapiens.

Instead, what shaped our societies is put down to geographical differences. Europe fostered competing nation states which existed separately because of natural geographical barriers while China had long been unified because of the comparative lack of such features in the landscape. Domesticable species were far more common in the old world than the new world. The old world's horizontal axis was far more facilitative of cross pollination of ideas, inventions and trade routes than the latitudinal variation in the new world. They are really good, thoughtful books, I do recommend them.

Recently, a third perspective has helped me to understand this issue with a different take, which I figure is far more holistic than either of the last two theories. Some may take offence at the idea that biblical truth is what transforms nations and generates wealth, but the facts rather speak for themselves. Loren Cunningham's 'The Book that Transforms Nations' offers a brief overview while 'Discipling Nations' offers a heftier elucidation. This idea in essence, suggests that God intended for societies to arise, and designed them to function in a certain way. Societies that function according to those principles; such as honest government, concern for the poor, valuing individuals and so on, will thrive, in the same way that a body that is respected by being fed the right food and well exercised will be healthy. God made societies, and knows how they should work better than any of us could, and He has graciously revealed His principles for a successful society in His word. This view holds that there is an absolute truth and an absolute standard which we can either choose to abide by, or abandon.

The advantage of this view over the second is that it gives us hope. The second view is ultimately deterministic, as much of the rest of the modern cosmological evolutionary account is. It diminishes the epic turns of history and the brilliant impact of artists, inventors, scientists, entrepreneurs and missionaries on this world by attributing them, indirectly, to probabilistic chance. No doubt Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus, but we ought to be wary of going overly fatalistic. The second view encourages us to think that nations which are underdeveloped will never be able to change, and so those who are more advanced have also diminished their sense of responsibility to share the blessings and wealth they have obtained.

What we believe about the how we relate to God and how we relate to the rest of material creation affects the attitude we have about our purpose and potential. The fact remains that the answers God has given are the only ones which enable us to see the perfect balance between divine providence and our responsibility to subdue the earth.

The stories we tell ourselves either create death, destruction and poverty or life, vibrancy and abundance. Either development or devolution in our societies. The stories we tell about our societies shape how we view the outcomes of success or failure, and the solutions we try to implement in order to pursue further prosperity. 

De Gravitate Voluntatis

This post is somewhat connected to the thoughts I've shared in my recent posts on predestination, and is primarily a discussion of choice and meaning.

In an earlier discussion, I made a suggestion that meaning in life comes from the value that God grants to us and our choices, finding meaning in what we do. After further thought, I feel that that statement is far too cursory. An idea I would like to weave into the tapestry is that choice is inseparable from consequence. The key to meaning is that our choices have been given the authority to shape this world, to have consequence.

God has made a beautiful creation. He invested His awesome power in this planet, life, our bodies, our minds. Crafting a whole system in intricate detail and with great care, He then gives humans authority to chose what to do with it. Our choices affect this world and that power gives our choices significance. Likewise, in a narrative, the we are able to find meaning in the characters and their decisions because their decisions affect their lives and the lives of people around them within the established context of the story.

When we are born, we have little authority. We observe the world, our parents, other adults, and everything is decided for us. Our clothes, the food and drink we ingest, the places we go are all at the discretion of those who have guardianship over us.

Then we develop and gain abilities we had not before. No longer a passive bystander, we take our first steps and speak our first words. In our action, we acquire authority over where we move and what we say. We are allowed to expand gradually into the full expression of these two abilities at a measured pace. At first we only toddle around the living room, then our parents hold our hands as we cross the street, leave us to play in a park. Our vocabulary grows, allowing us to articulate more specific concepts, give compliments and complaints, and to express love and hate. Steadily we gain more authority over where we spend our time, who we socialise with, the emotions of others through the words we say. We may not be kings, but in our own little worlds, we begin to assume more responsibility and influence.

After ability comes mastery, which comes as we learn to wield the power we find that we have. We learn that when we are late, it inconveniences others, while if we are in the right place at the right time, things proceed more smoothly and pleasantly. We learn that the words we say can make or break someone's day, particularly those who are closest to us. We begin, hopefully, to be sensitive to the consequences of our choices, and choose as wisely as we can.

Yet we make mistakes. We underestimate traffic, we forget appointments, two careless drivers meet, a ferry capsizes. A rash word is released in hissing anger or writhing insecurity, and by words, wars are declared and marriages bitterly annulled. Then we step back and wonder why such power was given to fallible creatures such as ourselves.

These are not the only abilities we have, nor the only powers we steward. We learn that we are responsible for our physical bodies, the exercise we do and the sustenance we ingest. For our souls, we select the media we experience and the things we learn, the thoughts we dwell on and those we take captive, the emotions that we allow to run rampant and those we temper. We choose to fill our spirits with the love of an awesome God, or a fake facsimile that deadens our humanity. We plan our days and our careers.

For some of us, a great transition is made upon the birth of a child, when, for the first time, your choices carry supreme consequence, not only for yourself, but for another, as of yet, helpless human being, and the cycle is complete.

In the face of this weight of choice, we all try to choose what we believe is best. Some despair and back away from choice because of past failure and fear. Others thrust on ahead with a complex system of justifications which lets them chose what they wish because balancing the multifarious demands of society and individuals is too tedious a consideration.

We can also choose to submit the authority we possess back into the hands of the one who gave it to us. For who would know how to manage the weight of will better than the one who constructed it.

Meaning comes not from independence, but from consequence. Thus, any system of thought that attempts to distance consequence from choice is straying from the truth and diminishes the sense of meaning in our lives. Any system of thought that connects a choice to the wrong consequence is misinformed. Making choices based on what we know is human wisdom, while making choices based on what God suggests is Godly wisdom. As far as I can tell, the latter is the most reliable and sustainable way to manage the gravity of volition.

De Humanitate Iesu

What follows is a transcript of a sermon based on some recent reflections; I thought it was worth a post:

For us, who have made the choice to believe in the resurrection power of Jesus, and pursue a Godly life, we are being made into the likeness of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 3:18, the Apostle Paul writes that under the ministry of the Spirit, we 

‘are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory,’

and in Romans 8:29, Paul writes again that we are being conformed to the image of His Son.’ As we live, we should strive to imitate Christ, though not on our own power, but on the power of Holy Spirit dwelling within us. 

Therefore, my question to you is, if Christ is our aim, how much do you know about how Christ lived? How much have you meditated on how Christ lived so that you know what to aim for? In Hebrews 12:1-2, the writer encourages us to run the Christian race 

‘fixing our eyes on Christ,’

and I love that image, but what does it mean? If we do not have a clear picture of who Jesus was, how can we run focused on Him? The way that we view Jesus Christ and His life here on earth influences our whole Christian walk. If you have an accurate picture of what Jesus did, then we can better understand what we are aiming for. We have to know where we are going before we try to start walking, or we will end up lost and confused.

Jesus is God, but also fully human, which means that in His life, He faced many of the same struggles that we do. A passage that really helps us to understand this is Matthew 4, the temptation of Jesus. After more than a month of fasting in the wilderness, the enemy comes to Jesus. Think again of how physically weak Jesus would have been at this point; I’ve gone at most a day without eating, and after just one day, I already feel lightheaded and tired. Jesus went for forty. Then the enemy appears and says to Him, ‘If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.’ What is the devil actually trying to test here? Is it simply the physical hunger of Jesus? Not so. Let us put the temptation of Jesus in context.

Just before the temptation, Jesus was baptised in the Jordan river by John the Baptist, and on that day, all the Trinity manifested. The Holy Spirit came down as a dove and the Father spoke these words ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.’ A month after this intense spiritual experience, the enemy comes and challenges Jesus’ faith in those words by asking ‘IF you are the Son of God.’ The enemy is testing Jesus’ ability to trust in the words He has heard from God. We see this again in the second temptation, where the enemy says ‘If you are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning You, and on their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ The enemy pulls in scripture as well, testing and testing Jesus’ security in the word of God. The enemy was testing how secure Jesus was in His identity in God, as the Messiah, as God’s Son.

In our lives, sometimes all that we have is God’s promises, His words of assurance from the past, the bible, or even something He may have spoken to us personally. How much do you keep those words and promises in mind, and live as though they are true? Sometimes we may also receive words from God, but not really believe them in our hearts. Yes, God loves me, but maybe not all the time. God is good, but maybe not this time, or only for other people. The enemy loves to take what God has said and twist it or undermine it with doubts and insecurities. He knows that if he is able to do that to us, then we will live in a cloud of lies that prevents us from living the full life that God has for us. This is what the enemy tried to do with Jesus as well, but Jesus was confident enough, and knew God’s word and character well enough, that He was able to counter with verses from Deuteronomy to stand firm against the enemy. Jesus trusted God’s words so well that He did not need to put those words to the test by jumping off the temple. Like Jesus, we should first know God’s words for us, and believe those words whole-heartedly without having to demand additional proof for them.

The third temptation attacks Jesus a little differently. Satan shows Jesus the kingdoms of the world and says to him, ‘All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.’ In Luke, Satan even says that he has the authority over these kingdoms because he has been given that authority. We often just recoil at the very idea that Jesus would bow down to Satan, and brush off this temptation as a silly attempt to cause Jesus to sin. But what is Satan really offering here? He’s offering Jesus a way out. Jesus knew that He would have to die at the hands of sinners. That was the plan that God had for His life, and it would be painful. Jesus knew the prophecies about His life, pierced for our transgressions, they will cast lots for his clothing, all that. He also knew that after this, He would be glorified by the Father to sit as His right hand, to have authority to rule in the coming Kingdom of God. Satan was offering Jesus a shortcut. Maybe you don’t have to do this God’s way, I can give you the authority that God is promising you right here, right now, without You having to suffer and die. To put it simply, You don’t have to do this God’s way, You can do it Your own way. 

When Jesus looked at His society, He saw a lot that needed to change, a lot of injustice running unchecked. The emperor of Rome at the time, Tiberius, was known for engaging in all sorts of immorality, for his cruelty and ignoring the affairs of state. Jesus must have wondered to Himself sometimes that if He was the Emperor, He could fix so many of the problems that plagued the people of His society. Things that He would do differently, based on the good principles of God’s truth. Decisions that could have been made more wisely and more lovingly, if only there was a Godly man in power. Yet, Jesus was forbidden to act on those thoughts because He knew that God’s way did not involve Him stepping up to become an earthly ruler in the first century, but rather, involved death and resurrection.

Very often, we look at our lives, and what God wants for it, but we trust our own plans and decisions more than God’s plan. He’s asking me to do that? Really? That’s nonsensical! No, there must be a better way, an easier and more comfortable way to get the job done. Think about the plan for Jesus’ life. Go and minister on the earth for three years, after that, you will be handed over to sinners to be crucified. To us, that seems like nonsense, yet, God’s plan and purpose was revealed. Through the work of Jesus, the whole world has the chance to be reconciled with God. I encourage you to step out in faith an obedience into what God has for you. From the present, before the full fruits of your obedience are apparent, it may seem absurd, but do we trust God’s plan enough to obey anyway?

Furthermore, just because we feel we have committed to God now, does not mean that those temptations and issues will never be a problem again. In our walk with God, very often we are challenged on how much we trust God’s words about our identity, and how much we trust God’s plan. Even for Jesus, after three years of ministry, He came back to the same old thoughts. Luke tells us that in the Garden of Gethsemane, right on the brink of the fulfilment of those prophecies, Jesus asked again, ‘Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.’ Again, Jesus had to remind Himself and choose God’s plan over His own plan for His life. Jesus struggled with point so hard that as He prayed, His sweat became like drops of blood. On the cross, the people who mocked Jesus used the same words that Satan did three years before, ‘If you are the Son  of God, come down from the cross,’ and ‘If you are the King of the Jews, save Yourself.’

In our lives, depending on what God calls us to do and who we are, certain issues may be a lifelong struggle. Sometimes there are good days where we are secure in God’s love, and at other times, the situations are more challenging and it is harder to believe in the goodness of God in that particular area. But look at the example of Jesus, and let Holy Spirit give you the strength to keep trusting God no matter what. It is possible for us to live in this way. Jesus Himself tells us in John 14:10-12 that 

‘...I am in the Father and the Father is in me. The words that I say to you I do not speak of my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, otherwise believe because of the works themselves. Truly truly I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also, and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.’ 

The Spirit of God, abiding in Jesus and abiding in us today, is the one who gives us the ability to live Godly lives. Holy Spirit teaches and reminds us, comforts and helps us. Jesus relied on the Spirit, and we too can grow in godliness as we pay attention to the Spirit’s work.

Jesus was able to do what He did not because He was superhuman, but because He was fully human. We were all designed to be in communion with God, with His indwelling Spirit guiding and leading us. When we do not live as the Spirit, we do not live in the way that God designed us to live. A way that is less complete and less human than what God intended. A way that is limited because we do not have the full experience of life, the abundant life that is described by Jesus in John 10:10. Let us thank God that Jesus was sent to show us how to be human, how to live and with His example firmly set in our minds, let us venture to do exactly that.

De Psalmis

I recently shared a testimony on my reflections on the nature of personal relationship, inspired by the time that I've spent over the last few months meditating on the psalms during my quiet times. As one might expect with this process, planning out a sermon in a clear and systematic manner yields further insight, hence this post.

Most interestingly, the psalms have helped me to rediscover what the rest of the bible truly is. I was reluctant to read through the volume of the hundred and fifty songs embedded in them middle of the Bible. But I reached a point where I had read through just about everything else- the prophets, major and minor, the torah, the gospels and epistles. Thus, I began with 'How blessed is the man who...', and proceeded with one psalm a day. I took them each as a poem, since their musical settings were unknown to me; something for David to explain to us all when we do meet him I suppose. Who knew that my IBDP English would help with my quiet times? God does use everything. As someone who devours stories and appreciates good characterisation, now reading through the psalms, I had the realisation that I had been reading the Bible as though it was fiction, another novel, another fantasy. Beginning with the most prolific, David, was not just a king who reigned some two thousand seven hundred years ago, who committed adultery and inspired 'Hallelujah'. He was a person, a fully realised human being, who had his deep struggles with reconciling the idea and character of God to the circumstances which he encountered in his life, as all of us do. Extend this to every other psalmist, Solomon, Korahites, exilic Jews, Moses, the other unknowns; and further, to every 'character' in the Bible, to every prophet, apostle, king or shepherd. going further, to each name mentioned only once or twice, names in the genealogies, and note that each is a person, an object of the love of God, and He knows them more than just by name. We are not stars, we are far more complex. Biblical sonder if you will. I find it amusing that sonder is listed as an obscure sorrow. Why should it be? Yes, you are not the most interesting and multifaceted person out there, but should we not be excited that everyone is? Each person represents a whole new world, a fractal in a set of fractals, developing and dreaming in their own capacity. Each life is another that I can get to know, that God can redeem for His glorious purpose.

Going off that previous point, why do we use the misleading phrase 'bible character'? The lives we read about in the Bible are people, not characters. We may not have a lot of details about some of them, but by calling them characters, we sink into the trap of thinking of them as characters. Characters are great constructs, from Heathcliff and Daisy, to Arwen and Daneel. But as flat or round as they may be, they are not people. They can only have as much significance as we grant them, and once we have read through their story, they never surprise us with anything new again. A person however, does surprise, does change and develop in unexpected ways, and has a naturally imbued significance that comes from the Creator, as a certain declaration would affirm in addition to the Bible. We may know more about certain characters than we do people, but that has nothing to do with how much more significant a single human life is than a whole slew of characters in an epic like the romance of the three kingdoms. It would be a lot better to call the names in the Bible something like 'people in the Bible', or 'Biblical people'.

Far more than the people in the Bible, there is a tendency for us to view God as another, or perhaps the main character in the Biblical narrative. He creates, he loves and nurtures, he judges and destroys. Some may even view God as the most mutable of the characters, going from a wrathful, immature being to one of benevolence and agape. Far from it. The psalms more than show how God has always been a relational and personal God, who is not after sacrifices and legalism but after obedience and trust in His character and plan. The revelation of Trinity shows us that God is inherently relational between His three persons, even before any interaction with His creation.

God is in fact, the source of our understanding of what it means to be truly personal. On our own, we so quickly sink into classifying people as their professions, their ages, their family relationships, their past experiences, or their interests, and so on. Only as we come to know God as a person and develop our relationship with Him do we get a better and better glimpse of how people ought to relate in a way that is truly mature, loving and thoughtful. Every positive aspect that you have known in a relationship is a pale reflection of the kind of relationship that God has within Himself, and desires to extend to you, and desires for you to demonstrate to others.

One final point- Why do we ask 'What would Jesus do?' The same way that we might ask 'What would Darcy do?' Jesus is alive and active, and He'll surprise us from time to time with something unexpected. A character is not alive, and cannot help but respond to something in the same classic way. Of course you could ask what a character would do and get a simple response. Jesus, in contrast, is alive and responds dynamically to situations. Yes, He does have a consistent character, but the way that He wants to act might be completely unexpected. Let's not ask 'What would Jesus do?' but just ask God directly, 'What would You want to do?' and listen out for His response.