I Am Not A Pacifist

 https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-you-should-buy-a-gun-according-to-c-s-lewis

No Christian should consider it his duty to roll over and die. “Love” is not another word for “nicety” or “passivity.” It is as fiercely aggressive as it is aggressively selfless — and sometimes, it means taking up arms.

As I observe the territory that used to be the Democratic Republic of America (amazingly, once known as the "united" states!) drift farther and farther into godless tyranny, likely rupture, and possible war, my personal inclination is to sit in "Red America" and watch it burn. I'd rather see a divorce between the states than a war. 

The phrase that keeps nagging in my brain is "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".  A quote I choose to attribute to Burke, but one that many have claimed. I don't claim to be a "good man" -- as Christ said, in Mark 18, "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." Naturally since he is God, there is some mystery there -- he is also fully man, so we will just leave it there for today. 

In this age of relativism however, "good men" is a lost concept, and "evil" is at best relative if recognized as existing at all, with the possible exception of "Whiteness".  

On top of this sad reality, the general very short attention spans of our population, and the total vacuity of our "elites", is the fact that Social Media is a shallow fetid pond that requires a shower after just dipping a toe in, let alone attempting to seed it with "pearls" -- I expect nobody to agree with my assessment of "pearls". Each of us now has the dubious "right" to consider our own views to be metaphysically "true".  

The topic of this post is my concern that too many Christians today believe that they are required to be pacifists. CS Lewis disagrees, as I believe does Christ. As he said in Luke 22 -- He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one".

Trump is the only evidence that "the Deplorables" are not going to just roll over and die quietly. One notices a distinct lack of violence as Christians gather (50K + in this case). My current studies are largely on the time before, during, and after the Civil War. Can a return to America happen without massive violence?  I'd argue that the America that resulted after the Civil War is a different country relative to foundational belief, it was really only "united" in territory. America was founded to be a collection of states where power was primarily with the people, then the community, then the states, and only then the Federal Government. The Civil War essentially reversed that order and it has been getting more explicit ever since. I'm not arguing the correctness of the Civil War. Certainly racially based chattel slavery was wrong, but there is a lot to argue on the METHOD of attempting to remove it, and the costs.  The discussion bears a lot of similarity to the use of the atom bomb. 

An excellent exploration of that topic is covered in "The Stakes" -- oh that millions of people could read that as a current version of "The Federalist Papers". Color me highly doubtful. While our founders deeply understood the stakes of their revolution (once "ours"), I'm certain that a culture that is unsure of how many genders there are is incapable of counting costs (or correct change for that matter). 

Lewis made this argument most forcefully in 1940, in front of a society of pacifists in a speech called “Why I Am Not a Pacifist.” He pointed out that pure nonviolence, if carried to its logical conclusion by all men of fighting age, would leave the pacifist nations defenseless and the world at the mercy of totalitarians and Nazis.

This post so far hasn't explicitly addressed the issue of defending your own body. The  commandments (in Hebrew) explicitly say thou shalt not MURDER as opposed to the common english false translation as "thou shalt not kill", causing much confusion. The real meaning in Hebrew  is clear -- thou shalt treat the issue of translation with fear and trembling! 

Historically, much of our Christian law is based on Natural Law ... in which self defence is clearly allowed. To some extent, Christ calls us to "rise above" nature, although clearly realizing that to be human is to be physically part of nature and it's laws. Yes, we have the  Holy Spirit, and we also know that we fail to follow his leadings on a regular basis. 

I think this article does a good job of covering the issue, I see the closing paragraph as a good summary. 

We recognize that this is a sensitive issue of conscience for many, and that grace and love must characterize this conversation. We also are convinced that any such self-defense must be considered as a last resort and in response to a reasonable threat. The same principle of valuing the image of God in others that drives us to protect the weak among us also compels us to a careful and measured response.

The bottom line is that when the issue comes to the fore, nobody really knows how they will react, just like a trained soldier doesn't actually know if he will kill until he does. Being armed (having a gun) is one level of decision, having a baseball bat, or being trained in self defence would be another. Depending  on your physical  characteristics,  when in extremis, your body may decide, and the result may surprise you.

We may get to the point where everyone claiming to be a Christian may have to display a cross on their home. As we saw in Germany, it may well be likely that as a first step to disarming the nation, the "authorities" will go house to house collecting weapons. Once they have them from the Christian minority (getting smaller and smaller),  it will be easier to take the rest. The knowledge that the population is heavily armed is itself a deterrent to tyranny. Even if you ARE a pacifist, having a few guns, even if they are in their original boxes with no ammo in the home, is a way to "vote for peace". 

My conclusion  is that if someone comes to my home with apparent violent intent, "official" or otherwise, it is my duty to forward  them to the eternal judge. I will also face that judge, and under Grace, even if I made the wrong choice, it will be covered by the sacrifice of Christ. Other Christians will face that same judge. If  not defending your neighbor was the wrong choice, Grace will be sufficient for that as well. 

My advice is to get a few weapons (shotgun, Armalite Rifle (NOT "assault"... that is propaganda), and a pistol that you can handle. Take a gun safety course, and learn how to use them. You may find that putting holes in paper or clay pigeons is actually quite fun. It is called "shooting, not killing  ... same for hunting/killing and fishing/catching. 

RIP, Animal, Past Lives

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/joseph-laurinaitis-wrestlings-animal-of-the-road-warriors-dies-at-60/2020/09/24/2dd5c35a-fdef-11ea-9ceb-061d646d9c67_story.html

Strange event to bring some of my past life to the surface of my now brain surgery / seizure damaged brain. Early in my IBM career, around the time of my marriage, my "team" (X.25 if I recall correctly) went to see the Road Warriors in Rochester, where oddly we ran into a very straight-laced corporatist 2nd line manager who had taken his early or slightly pre-teen daughter that loved the Road Warriors to the same show.  

I had more than a passing interest in lifting heavy things in those days -- 325 on the bench, 240 military. I had a lot of respect for professional wrestling -- "ballet for those over 250 lbs" as I saw it. 

I was also going through a good deal of "religious angst". Raised and Baptised a "Born again Baptist". Severely doubting the truth of God as I ardently pursued Computer Science and the almighty dollar, I was beginning my quest for "wisdom" -- theological, philosophical, technical, cultural,  and "whatever".  Complicated by falling in love with an even more conservatively raised woman. 

So how did we culturally decide that the "last night" of single life for a man ought to be a night of debauchery? 

Not that I really trust Time magazine, but their take is: 

The bachelor party, however, goes back much further than you'd expect. It's rooted in ancient history — as early as the 5th century B.C. It is believed that the ancient Spartans were the first to make a celebration out of the groom's last night as a single man. Spartan soldiers held a dinner in their friend's honor and made toasts on his behalf — with, one assumes, a Spartan sense of decorum. Since then, the events have generally grown more raucous. In 1896, a stag party thrown by Herbert Barnum Seeley — a grandson of P.T. Barnum — for his brother was raided by police after rumors circulated that a famous belly dancer would be performing nude. Before his wedding to Gloria Hatrick, Jimmy Stewart's infamous bash at the Beverly Hills hangout Chasen's included midgets popping out of a serving dish.

Having been raised in pietous past, my curiosity leads me to Luther's opinion on Mardi Gras. The internet is always helpful (if not always correct, let alone righteous!): 

https://michigandistrict.org/healthy-workers/the-theology-of-pancakes/

This is a temptation for any of us: focus too much on how much you’re not sinning, and the thought starts to creep into your mind that perhaps your own right living is the basis of your acceptance before God. And yet, this misses the essence of faith: not sin-avoidance, but Christ-reliance.

And so Martin writes Philip with words that are as compelling as they are controversial:

“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but trust in Christ more boldly still, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.”

Luther isn’t recommending that Philip rob a bank or insult his mother. His point is that we should always take Christ and his mercy much more seriously than we take ourselves and our sanctity. “[Christ] became for us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord’” (1 Cor 1.30–31).

I'm not claiming to understand the Truth that we are BOTH "Saints and Sinners". I just understand that it IS truth!  

So my oh so helpful team in that distant past decided that I needed a Bachelor Party, and given that they knew of my pietous past, religious searching,  and impending marriage, they thought a stripping "nun" would be somehow appropriate (we were young). Apparently, as the "act" proceeded, cheers for "Road Warriors" rose to a crescendo, and I executed the "Road Warrior press" ( grasping under the arms, military pressing her to full height over my head) on said "nun". ( I'm not likely to get on the SCOTUS) 

I'm told that the event was marred by my quickly going to arms raised in triumph as her apogee was reached, oblivious to the fact that gravity would  return the spike heeled lass expeditiously to earth. Thankfully, she was young, agile, and resilient, so no injury ensued. 

My heart was gladdened to see in the article that: 

Both Mr. Laurinaitis and Hegstrand became born-again Christians, something which helped Hegstrand conquer his addictions. Nevertheless, he died from a heart attack in 2003 at age 46.

How long we hang on in this veil of tears is of very little significance. I'd like to imagine that we could have some great heavenly tag team matches. Perhaps they will be known as "The Legion of Grace"? 

Is Covid A Sign From God?

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2020/07/covid-19-as-a-sign-from-god/

As Veith reminds us, for believers, EVERYTHING is at least allowed, if not instigated by God. 

I like his concluding paragraphs: 

Those of us who had become so complacent, so “carnally secure,” are so no longer. We might catch the disease from an asymptomatic carrier and in two weeks be dead. And even if we don’t, our prosperity, our recreation, our social ties, our sense of well-being, are all threatened. We have taken so much for granted, but the epidemic shows just how contingent it all is, how fragile and transient these things are, and how we need to build our lives on something–and Someone–eternal. Becoming less secure in ourselves can drive us to Christ, who bore the evils and the suffering of the world, to bring us to an eternal happiness that is not of this world.

All of this is horrible for us to go through. But I suspect God believes that we need to go through it.

Growth requires "pain" ... see exercise, study, investment - delayed gratification, work, etc. 

Spiritual life / growth is no exception -- YES, justification is a free gift from God, sanctification is to some degree (hopefully often joyful), WORK! 

Hopefully Covid reminds us that we are not nearly as powerful / in control as we often think, and, that Christ IS both powerful and eternally in control!

Out Of The Ashes, Anthony Esolin

https://mereorthodoxy.com/reviewing-anthony-esolens-out-of-the-ashes/

I liked the linked review. As that reviewer pointed out. Dreher's "Benedict Option" covers much of the same ground from a more philosophical vs theological angle.

A couple good quotes:

Here is a quick and generally reliable rule to follow. If people have always said it, it is probably true; it is the distilled wisdom of the ages. If people have not always said it, but everybody is saying it now, it is probably a lie; it is the concentrated madness of the moment.

We are servile for mass entertainment, when we could be free with our hearts and ourselves for the worship of God, which truly builds up a human community, rather than just herding people in an aggregate of many thousands who do not know one another, and whose only common bond is that they prefer a certain style of uniform.

I found this to be the most accurate and pithy quote I've seen on "higher education". For a longer version of this sad truth, see "Excellent Sheep".

You sink yourself in debt to discover that your sons and daughters have been severed from their faith, their morals, and their reason. Whorehouses and mental wards would be much cheaper. They might well be healthier, too.

On manhood he says the following, while I believe it is wise for Christians especially to read this book, "Fortitude" is more generally reachable, and even for Christians, it may be important to read to establish enough fortitude to make it through Esolen. 

But the boy must be made into a man; nor is it true that, once he has established himself as a man, he need never worry about it again. Manhood is risky. It must be publicly affirmed, and you can lose that affirmation by cowardice or effeminacy.

I could go on forever, however the book must be read by Christians who care -- summaries are not enough. We need to separate ourselves from the many entertainments and distractions that Satan has heaped upon us. As age advances, I increasingly believe that the Amish have it much more right than I had previously imagined!

Christians must repudiate the whole sexual revolution. All of it. No keepsakes, no exceptions. Remember Lot’s wife.

Excellent Sheep

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/books/excellent-sheep-william-deresiewiczs-manifesto.html

This book is old news for my regular readers -- we are in decline, our elite are significantly at fault, the abandonment of "soul" is a major cause. The author is not a believer, so his idol is "Great Books" ... Alan Bloom is often mentioned. The author has seen the problem that meaninglessness is a really bad problem, and credentialism is just making it worse. I agree -- we are meant to have a reason to live, a "what is it all for". Meaning matters.

He may have more credibility in the leftish quarters as he is a non-believer (in religion, he believes in "The Great Books") and a Yalie PHD / professor ... he has seen first hand that the elite pipeline isn't even good for the elite, let alone American culture.

"The system manufactures students who are smart, talented, and driven --yes, but also anxious, timid, and lost with little intellectual curiosity and a stunted sense of purpose: trapped in a bubble of privilege, heading meekly in the same direction, great at what they are doing but with no idea why they are doing it". 

 A quote from a student transferring out of Stanford:"I've seen my peers sacrifice health, relationships, exploration, activities that can't be quantified and are essential for developing souls and hearts, for grades and resume building". From a Yale student:"A friend of mine said it nicely -- I might be miserable, but if I were not miserable, I wouldn't be at Yale".

One of my favorite quotes from the book that reminds me of my IBM career:"It's hard to build your soul when everyone around you is trying to sell theirs". My soul was very screwed up in search of "money, promotion, recognition" while I was at IBM -- with a lot of Grace, I hope some healing is in process ... to the extent it happens, it will be by Grace through the Holy Spirit.

The author likens the assembly line of America's leading sheep to a salmon run. "The key word is "safety". Beneath the other factors - the entitlement, the lack of direction, the desire to not close down options - the force that drives the salmon run is fear."

In this spring of our Corona imprisonment, we see the fruits of the majority sheep flock being "led" by excellent sheep. The sheep-leaders panic and run this way and that as the now apparent puppy of Corona chases them (they were crying WOLF!, a true fear for elderly / infirm). They are driven by FEAR -- "what IF"??? Originally, some fear of over-reacting, followed by a panicked over reaction, now trending toward the cover up for the over reaction and economic damage. Sheep make poor "leaders" ... even "excellent ones".

His hope is "The Great Books", mine is Christ -- and Christ was the hope of the elite up to "God and Man At Yale" -- hope is certainly better than no hope, I prefer hope that has been shown to be valid for over 2K years.

The Biggest Corona Problem Is Eternal

https://spectator.us/confessions-covid-19-truther/

Always among the most sobering or truths ...

Stated by Socrates:  “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

Stated by Solomon: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

Stated by Jesus: "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing."

Stated by the linked article which references Cardinal Ratzinger, whose wisdom I have often appreciated:

The bigger (perhaps biggest) problem is that nobody has any idea what is true. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, just before Pope Benedict XVI talked about the ‘dictatorship of relativism.’ What he meant is that, without any grounding in Christian concepts of natural law, humans have a tendency to believe in anything so long as it satisfies their sense of self. This leaves us living under a tyranny which, as Ratzinger put it, ‘recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the “I” and its whims as the ultimate measure.’ 

That’s what is happening with the COVID-19 panic. Nobody really understands the scale of the problem. Almost everybody, truthers and alarmists, are grasping at nothing. We can’t admit the most frightening truth of all, which is that none of us knows anything at all.

I certainly lean "truther" because my bias is to question the prevailing elite dogma. The more I'm called a "bitter clinger" or a "deplorable", the more I question the earthly wisdom and cling to the Cross.

Because my understanding of the human condition is that we WILL believe in something, my faith is in Christ -- and since it is faith, it won't be defended here as "rational", however it is just as easy (and I find it easier) to RATIONALIZE in comparison to Materialism, Progressivism, Secular Humanism, Scientism, Historicism,  etc 

Sexual Morality In A Christ-less World

https://www.challies.com/articles/sexual-morality-in-a-christless-world/

This book reminded me of a Dennis Prager post that impressed me. 

In the ancient world, sex (like life in general) was simply about power. Sometimes the perpetrator vs the penetrated had higher status, however, if you were in power, might made "right" -- being powerful meant you got to do whatever you wanted. The idea that being in power meant that "the gods smiled on you", meant that you were inherently just. Julies Caesar for example:

Julius is “Every woman’s man and every man’s woman.”Despite the raised eyebrows with Julius playing the woman in sexual encounters with men, he was given a pass by society because he proved his strength and manliness through his many military conquests

The idea of morality being something other than mere power is a Judaeo / Christian concept ... thus as Prager points out, it comes very close to "proving" God. If there was not revelation, why would the powerful even consider giving up ANY of their privileges?

It was Christ that instituted the idea of wives having rights equivalent to members of mans own body, and using the idea of the Church being "the bride of Christ".

The theme of the book is that what many in our culture think are "advanced ideas" about sexuality, they are in fact ancient -- and there is more to come.

"For more than a thousand years pederasty was the norm. More than the norm, in many circles it was actually considered the purest form of love."

 The Greeks and the Romans considered sexual relations between men and young boys to be "pure love".

While many "moderns" consider Christians to be "prudish" or "old fashioned" the "modern" pagans are in fact returning to the "moral" outlook of the ancient pagans -- including the sacrifice of children, now euphamised  as "abortion".

One  theme of the book that is certainly uncomfortable to many Christians (including me)  is that homosexuality is not some "special sin", like blaspheming the Holy Spirit often is claimed to be (a discussion for another day).

Contrary to popular accusations, Christian opposition to homosexuality is in no way based on hatred of homosexuals. The Bible is equally firm that heterosexual intercourse outside the estate of marriage is wrong; no one suggests that the prohibition against heterosexual immorality is born out of hatred for heterosexuals.

Many a man addicted to porn feels smug in his sin because "I thank God I am not a homosexual".

Practicing Jewish men pray each day  ... “Blessed are you, LORD our God, Ruler of the Universe, who has not made me a woman.” Prior to that he also blesses God for not making him “a Gentile” and “a slave”. 

I'm not sure I'd go with "no one suggests that the prohibition against heterosexual immorality is born out of hatred for heterosexuals" as Rueger does. I think many do find homosexuality to be a far worse sin than adultery or fornication -- ALL of us are prone to seeing our own sins as being "less sinful" than others sins -- however, God;s ways are NOT our ways, and part of submission to Christ is accepting HIS morality rather than attempting to justify ours.

The other theme of the book that I find important is understanding how or view of "being human" has changed:

The historic Western understanding of the human person was that we are fundamentally religious creatures.

Sex education in schools builds on this fundamental cultural belief that everyone is born a “sexual being.”

Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc started Western civilization down the path of man's intellect and spirit being what identified him has human vs animal. Animals don't do philosophy at all. The "ancient enlightenment" was that the "higher" human was able to have at least significant rule over his animal  parts through cultivation of those "higher" aspects of his being.

The "modern" idea is the thought that we are primarily animals -- and that any thought of "higher functions" creates dangerous distinctions and is "false consciousness", "privileged" or "whiteness".

If the physical rules, then eventually physical power rules -- and we can expect the ancient (and obvious) idea of might being right will increasingly replace the "2000 year reign" of Christian morality.

Gentle Regrets, Roger Scruton

https://philosophynow.org/issues/63/Gentle_Regrets_Thoughts_from_a_Life_by_Roger_Scruton

A brutally honest autobiography that expresses the guilt, shame, and redemption of a versatile and courageous intellectual, recently passed.

Sir Roger excels in appreciation of opera, architecture, wine and culture -- areas that I am but a philistine. The linked review does a great job of introducing the book.

On page 35, as Roger realizes that he is not going to be able to live an honest life by going with the dominant direction of postmodernism ... "What, I asked do you propose to put in the place of the bourgeoisie that you so despise, and to whom you owe the freedom and prosperity that that enable you to play on your toy barricades"?

Roger sees that reality is not only "particles and progress", and that the impulse to attack is born of a hatred of history, tradition, and ultimately God.

p 117 ... "It was only since becoming part of a family that I have become fully aware of the depth and seriousness of the opposition between the family and the State. The family has become a subversive institution -- almost an underground conspiracy -- which is at war with the State sponsored culture."

I'll be reading more of Roger.

Has American Christianity Failed?

This book spoke to me because the author followed a path to Christ similar to mine. The biggest difference is that  he WAS baptized as an infant (and I wasn't, I was baptized as adult to "follow Christ") ... no matter, Baptism is Christ's work, not mans. It is effective because Christ does it (in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), and we (fortunately) can't screw it up!

The author then went through the "personal decision for Christ", "personal relationship with Jesus", "living" (or attempting to live) " the law based American Christianity. Then eventually finding (Christ finding him) then the sacramental life in Christ.

He sums up the experience of American Christianity (AC) very well as a constant cycle between pride and despair.

American Christianity fails because its yoke is wearisome. Its burden is heavy. Having taken its eyes off of Jesus as the Author and Perfecter of faith, American Christianity replaces the work of the Holy Spirit with the choice of the sinner. It replaces the comfort of the Gospel with the doubt of our resolve. It replaces the certainty of God’s promise with the shakiness of our feelings. It puts burdens and doubts where the Lord would give us freedom and faith.

The focus of AC is on YOUR DECISION vs Christ Crucified and the free gift of salvation through Baptism, Holy Communion and Holy Scripture. The focus of Confessional Christianity is on Christ Crucified FOR YOU, giving the gifts of Baptism, Communion and the preaching of the Gospel. It is GIVEN to you, it isn't "about you", your decision, your obedience, your (unaided by the Holy Spirit) faith.

As I like to say when asked "when were you saved"? My answer is "about 2K years ago when Christ died on the cross for my sins".

God has not promised the feeling of forgiveness. He promises forgiveness itself, if we feel it or not. God has not promised that we will experience His presence.

AC believes in Grace for the unbeliever, Law for the believer. The believer is expected to believe that they really only know they are "saved" because of the evidence of their pietism ...  they "don't drink, don't smoke, don't lust, they go to a lot of church or "church things". If they fail to meet some standard of this, are they "really saved"? They can never honestly have assurance ... they can only have hope.

Therefore ...

Pietism ends either in the sin of pride or the sin of despair.

We have all seen it ... the "holier than thou" AC, or the "fallen" AC -- depending on your AC "brand", your congregations' standards of pietism will vary, but it will always be there.

AC is often about spiritual enthusiasm ... 

Theological enthusiasm is the promotion of the internal testimony of “God” over the external testimony of the Scriptures. The enthusiast sees all the action on the inside [feelings].

In the past "30 years or so",  AC has moved to the praise band, rock and roll "Christian" songs, dry ice "smoke" on the stage, fancy lights, lots of ripped blue jeans, etc. It is meant to be entertaining and "authentic". You are supposed to have a lot of warm and excited feelings that give you "proof" of your salvation. If you don't have those feelings, how can you be sure you are "saved"?  

So, what about Baptism, which the Bible directly says, "saves you"? (1 Peter 3:21) "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

For AC, this is a "hard teaching" like Matthew 16:28 "This IS my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Much like Bill Clinton, "is" is a hard word for AC. In the words of Wolfmueller relative to his AC EXPERIENCE: 

I said, “Baptism is a physical thing; it is not in my heart, so it can’t save me.” That is enthusiasm in action. It is the theological logic behind the rejection of the saving work of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It is what makes American Christianity so individualistic. Enthusiasm is what drives the terrible swing between pride and despair that marks the life of most American Christians.

 The Bible isn't very hopeful for us keeping the Law ... in fact, Christ died BECAUSE we are not able to keep the law -- never. The most pious are certain to fail the Law in the way that Christ had the most nasty things to say about -- because they are human, when we focus on the law, pride is a certain result, at heart, we are all spiritual toddlers -- "look at me!", "look what **I** did!" -- and often that pride is a sin that we will pridefully refuse to admit because we are most certainly less prideful than most!

God DOES enjoy our attempts at good works very much. Much as a loving parent enjoys the toddlers "help" with a task. Certainly, we attempt to do good works -- and then we repent of the pride we are bound to feel because we are still sinners.

“Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3).

Whenever you have a “Jesus and . . .” theology, it is the “and” that matters. If our theology is “Jesus and our efforts,” then the thing that matters is our efforts. The Gospel is diminished, and the Law is exalted.

Jesus will not let you be your savior. Salvation belongs to Him alone.

This book is so full of scriptural Grace and Truth that it is overflowing. It gets into eschatology, which is the source of a LOT of AC confusion. It does a super SCRIPTURAL, yet easy to follow, defense of the fact that we are IN the "millennium" vs waiting and watching for it, which is the source of a lot of AC error. 

One of my bigger remembrances of growing up Baptist was the extreme focus on the 2nd coming, and the supposed Biblical "fact" that when that happened, the unbelievers would be "left behind". This all has to do with the AC doctrine of "premillennialism dispensationalism".

The idea that those who are not taken to the Lord will go about wondering what happened to their friends is nowhere in the text, as if those who were swept away by the flood were puzzled over the whereabouts of Noah. In the days of Noah, the flood came and took away all the unbelievers. So it will be on the Last Day. Jesus will return, and the unbelievers will be taken away in judgment. To be taken away is the bad thing. To be left behind is what we want, to stand before the Lord in His glory.

A core of Lutheran theology is that it uses the Bible to interpret the Bible ... for example when Jesus says to Peter how many times, he must forgive his brother, Jesus says -- "I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.".

It is pretty easy for us to understand that Jesus is not telling Peter to get out a clicker, and when he gets to 491, he is justified in telling his brother he is out of luck -- he reached "the limit" of forgiveness. 

Much of understanding the eschatology relies on this type of hermeneutics -- the Lutheran method used for interpretation, "using the Bible to interpret the Bible".  When is a "number" a counting number, and when is it a statement of magnitude? There is a reason for understanding Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, etc. -- as well as understanding some things in the context of the times (e.g. donkey vs horse, washing feet, greeting with a kiss, etc.) 

A highly recommended for ALL, but especially for those caught in the pride/despair cycle of AC and being concerned about "how they feel". 

Narcissistic Civilization Threat

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy/202002/how-humiliate-absolute-narcissist

I was struck by this quote ...

No society has ever found an antidote to an absolute narcissism epidemic. Instead, the epidemics have died eventually simply because no one can pretend they’re righter than reality forever. Such movements eventually lose their battle against reality, though often causing mass destruction in the process. The most likely cause of humankind’s eventual extinction is runaway confirmation bias of absolute narcissist movements whether through world domination or the conflagration that results from infallibility battles between opposing absolute narcissist movements.

I'd argue that Western civilization had the antidote up to "the late 1800's" ... the PRACTICE of Christian living. However, Darwin, Nietzsche, Lenin and others, ushered in godless materialism, and in the early 20th century, mankind paid for the worship of this "golden calf" with more than 100 million lives.

My view is that the root causes of this "Societal level Narcissism" are the twin terrors of absolute thinking and human nature. "The cure" is humility ... the daily recognition that "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God", and the practice of allowing Christ to change the heart through the Word and the Sacraments.

For 200 years in America, a Christian base and an intellectual elite that believed in Natural Rights was enough to make a great nation.

 Much of modernity would either tell you that there is no such thing as "reality", it is all a "social construct". Secular materialist positivist humanism would tell you that there DEFINITELY IS, and they are RIGHT! My guess is that the author of the linked would have a lot of trouble with Moral Believing Animals. Because ,,,

For example, if they play prude, saying, “Don’t be a mean name-caller,” say to the audience, “This fool doesn’t even notice that name-caller is a name. We all name call. We’re all mean sometimes. I’m trying to name call with precision, and I’m mean where I think meanness is earned. This absolute narcissist doesn’t care about name-calling or meanness. They pretend to care when it helps them pretend they’re eternally right and righteous. Pitiful.”

One wonders why the link author is so adamant that the people he labels as "Absolute Narcissists" must be "humiliated"?  Why "humiliated" vs "calmly challenged", "exposed to other points of view", or some such vs "humiliated"? My very biased guess is that he has Trump in mind, and believes he could be "humiliated". Perhaps.

And thus the Narcissistic Civilization Threat. We see clear evidence of this threat on both the "Trump Train" and the Bernie / Bloomie candidacies ... and if we dig just a little, it's everywhere, because when it comes to our basic beliefs, we ALL accept them on faith and faith alone -- for humans, there really isn't any "objective reality", only the "narrative" that each of us has.

My view is that Trump is far less a threat since he supports Christians being allowed to worship -- not so clear in Bernie / Bloomy.

4 Pillars For American Education

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/four-pillars-educating-america/

Excellent article!

These are the four chief elements, the four pillars, of the founding of Hillsdale College: learning, character, faith, and freedom. The College’s founders saw these things not as items on a discrete list, but as a description of the complete human being and of the well-lived human life. Of course colleges proceed by argument, evidence, and proof, and here at Hillsdale we argue about anything, including these elements. We preserve them as well because they lay the ground for that argument, for its continuing civility and probity, for the advancement of learning, and for the preservation of the freedom to do it. They are a prescription for civilization.

I tend to order them in what I see as the proper order :

1. Faith -- Because you are certain to have it, and if it isn't in something unchanging and purposeful, then why bother?
2. Character -- Which I believe can only be developed by faith in Christ, because through the workings of the Holy Spirit that will allow it's growth in humility and confidence--confidence in Christ, not yourself. 
3. Learning -- If you are a Christian, you will be immersed in learning about Christ, and in Christ you will be truly free to face a lot of the very uncomfortable things about reality. Without Christian faith, and character developed by the Holy Spirit, you will almost certainly learn a lot of very wrong things. 
4. Freedom -- I see this as an often misunderstood pillar. As Solzhenitsyn and Frankel taught us, even in the most extreme cases of the lack of physical freedom, we can be free in Christ beyond all even potential earthly human freedom. In fact, the greatest earthy physical freedom is often a horrid prison of addiction, striving after mammon, etc 

I found this paragraph to be a good statement of what we need to get back as a people if we want to be "Great Again". 

In former times, the most thoughtful people valued the old or the new only insofar as they gave a clue to the eternal and transcendent. In seeking the transcendent, they believed that old things did have a certain dignity on their face: they have the advantage of persistence, which is one part of virtue. Things that have been thought good for a long time are worthy of attention, respect, and study. New things are harder to judge. Nonetheless, both old and new things must meet the test of permanence and transcendence.

To the modern ear, that sounds antiquated. Today the theme is not permanence, but change; not transcendence, but presence. Change is the master key to everything. Change can be eternal only in the sense that everything changes. But if everything changes, nothing is permanent, and nothing is transcendent. Today we are trying to make a transcendent good out of the one thing that cannot transcend.

We are created with an eternal soul, and our life is intended to be a journey back to the source of that soul.  We are permanent, we made to seek the permanent. Truth itself is under a withering attack -- how can it not be if all is change?

Modern liberalism in America begins with two ideas: one, everything is change; two, we should use science to get control of the process of change and make the society into what we want it to be. This is the engineering project that has significantly changed the way we are governed. It threatens to change our way of life decisively and for all time.

 Just read the article rather than me, your very freedom to be able to do so is under a vicious and amoral attack in a sham "impeachment" as this is written!

Get Thee Outside Of Thyself

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2020/01/luthers-psychological-remedy/

The book referenced at end of linked is on order. This is definitely a "just read the referenced" ... I'm not going to add any wisdom here, and I doubt I can distill it any better than Luther or Veith for that matter, whose Blog I follow, and whose one book I've read so far, I love.

One tiny quote ...

Christians especially should consider the implications of a God who became flesh, who sanctifies the glorious and distinct beings comprising external reality. He, after all, is the “Logos,” or Being, who brought about and secures the “logoi,” or beings, of the created external order. Because of him, our “neighbor” becomes an object of love, not a character in our own psychic dramas. He draws us out of ourselves and into himself, the glorious “other.”

Christianity Today, Everyday, Forever, And Politics

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2019/12/24/a-response-to-the-editor-of-christianity-today-n2558477?fbclid=IwAR2EZ25iUsFo_kM6SICjJRm_ZQy8zXMR__twVIwseTn-NS_YCinRlPaD9PU

My view of following Christ is that it is such a higher calling than politics that our passion for it is best set a decent bit down our priority list. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, and he had nearly nothing to say of a tyrannical and often oppressive Roman government.

The  desired priority list of a Christian as defined in the Bible seems something like:

1. Christ ... God, the Church, The Apostles Creed, ... 
2. Community -- Family (as defined in the Bible), Friends, Neighbors, etc 
3. "The Poor" -- when possible, PERSONALLY helping them, and then "as personally as possible", in stewardship of what organizations we support. Not attempting to outsource the responsibility to the government by "voting correctly", etc

... and of course we could go on, and I won't.


Priorities require some sort of "order", which requires some definition of right/wrong, better/worse,  ... things like written and followed Constitutions, which if they are to continue to exist in a democracy, require a defined population (eg bounded/bordered) that understand at a basic level what things like "order", "law", etc mean. `

Since there are no even remotely perfect politicians, are always required to vote for a FAR less than perfect candidate -- and different types of failings will affect people differently. Praeger makes a decent case for many of the reasons that anyone of conservative mindset will support Trump over any known Democrat alternative ... support for life, appointment of judges that seek to defend a written Constitution, policies that produce decent political results (like definfined and enforced borders, voter ID), good economy, religious freedom, etc

What Dennis does not make clear in my mind is the maybe (to him) too obvious point that the present criteria would make all previous presidents with the possible exception of Harrison and Madison as being needful of impeachment.

"Laws" that are only enforced when "your side" wins, are political policy weapons, not "laws" -- best defended as political vs moral issues.

The two supposed "criteria" of the current "impeachment" are 1). Seeking help from a foreign government to investigate potential crimes by the son of a potential future candidate to oppose his re-election 2). Obstructing congress

As stated in the NY Times ... article:

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Actually, he asked a foreign leader to look into fairly well known case of the SON of a former US VP and POTENTIAL nominee for US president in 2020. To the extent Americans accept this standard as legitimately "impeachable", Obama certainly ought to have been impeached, since we now know that his administration investigated and encouraged foreign governments to investigate Trump before and during the time he was the opposition party candidate for president -- when in fact the Mueller Report and subsequent investigations have shown there was no legitimate reason to begin such an investigation. (The FISA court was lied to).

Article 2 fails to recognize that we have three branches of government explicitly opposed (see Federalist 10) ... the President is SUPPOSED to often obstruct Congress! It is a MAJOR part (separation of powers) of the Constitution that he (and they!) swear that they will defend! (Although, without at least some form of transcendent authority (religion) what does "swear" actually mean? )


The President is the head of the Justice Department, so initiating and participating in criminal investigations ... domestic and foreign, is is part of what he does. If someone running for president (and now apparently their family) is immune from being investigated, we we have established a radically new standard. Is this a new standard we want?

In jeopardy of being investigated for criminal activity? Run for president! You have immunity!

How "Christianity Today" would even begin to attempt to establish support for Trump as in any way "immoral" (and from the POV of CT, it appears that they mainly define "morality" as what they said in '98) is difficult to comprehend.

To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?

To the extent we are Christians, it is never about OUR behavior -- for we (and I'd assume CC) daily admit we are filthy sinners, totally undeserving of God's Grace and in desperate need of constant humble repentance and forgiveness. It isn't WE who ultimately defend life, it is GOD! (Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart ...")

None of "we" humans have "moral standing" to judge anyone / anything from a "Christian" POV. We certain can, and are commanded to DISCERN (with Christ's Grace) what is Biblically moral!

To the extent we try to set our (or our leaders, or anyone else but Christ's) behavior up as the moral standard, we are just giving more evidence to the  fact of how far WE ... including our nation, churches, etc have fallen! Nobody will come to Christ based on our imagined "goodness/righteousness" -- we can HOPE AND PRAY that we do far better, but we daily confess it isn't going to be enough!  (I'd argue that Billy Graham did far better though!)

Certainly Clinton broke the law ... he lied under oath, he had sex with an employee at the office, something that any of us would be legitimately fired for, and then lied about it. Only by a new standard under which all but 2 former presidents would have been impeached, and if justice was served, removed from office, could Trump be validly impeached OTOH.

We are called to be the best citizens we can be, so I see it as our duty to know as much as each of us are able about our laws, things like attempted coups, etc, and present that case as nonjudgmentally (very difficult!) as we can! In general, conservatives are quiet people -- a major part of the reason that Trump is hard for them to support -- his personality (and behavior) is not what they approve of.

It appears that CT may have made it's own case against their opposition ...

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

In CT's view, one wonders what constitutes "morality", and their right to pass judgement on the "dumbing down" of such. In John 1:8 after the interaction with woman caught in the act of adultery, We see:

 "Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
“No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

My imperfect understanding of the NT is that it is heavily weighted to the condemnation of earthly religious authorities who presume they, as opposed to God, are to judge. Even Christ says "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."

While Satan certainly wants the world to believe that the imperfection of Christian morality is a valid cause for harsh judgement and accusation, does CT really see it the same way and want to admonish others to follow them? Does Christ tell us to argue constantly about who has the bigger "log" in their eye?

I believe that one of of Satan's chief weapons is seeking to equate the Christian defense of BIBLICAL morality with "hate and judgement", and worldly lack of consideration of Biblical morality with "love". Having any type of standard means having  DISCERNMENT ... one has to know what the standards are to follow them. And a base fact of life is that we all DO have standards of some sort -- often accidentally, often poorly followed, author definitely included!

The sad part of "Christianity Today" (both as a magazine and in reality) is that many Christians hold their acceptance by the world to be more important than their adherence and support for the standards of God. James 4:4 is not one of their favorite verses ... "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."
And in the end, I believe Satan's "chief weapons" will look like these ... this post was getting pedantic.

It is HARD to avoid judgement of a person that disagrees with us on very tough issues like life, sexual morality, God having defined marriage as only between the two observable sexes, and personalities that we find "offensive" ... etc

It is so hard we have no hope of it without God's Grace given in Christ ... pray to accept and stay in that Grace!

And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brothers is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Darwin Dogma Discussed

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/the-power-line-show-ep-138-the-crisis-in-darwinism.php

If you follow the headline link, you can get this wonderful article by David Gelernter, who is a respected computer scientist that I have an interesting 2nd hand connection to.

So begins a journey that I have long dabbled in, and hope to now take in earnest -- attempting to give a truly secular view of the Darwinist faith. "Moral, Believing Animals" covers the fact that we alll live by faith, the only question is; "in what?" Realizing that nothing is "provable" in a scientific, philosophical, or theological sense is enlightening. 

As you may see me state probably too often, one of my current goals is to firmly establish my personal dogma -- with dogma meaning "the core, the base, the foundation" ... or in operating systems terms, the "kernel". I already have the "core of the core", like the "microkernel" if you will, of "Grace alone (sola gratia) through faith alone (sola fide) for the sake of Christ alone (solus Christus), revealed by Scripture alone (sola Scriptura).

The first paragraph of Gelernter states ..

Darwinian evolution is a brilliant and beautiful scientific theory. Once it was a daring guess. Today it is basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth—no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration—certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life. But what if Darwin was wrong?

Darwin is indeed part of the base dogma of most people's "modern" worldviews. Upon it rests the faith that a randomly created universe and biological life are randomly "good" (adaptive) relative to an ever evolving "standard" (an oxymoron), the inevitability of "progress" being "good" .... thus at the base of secularism is the faith that "randomness is good, randomness is great, we thank it for our daily bread".

I've started reading "Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design" ...  quote from that book:

Rarely has there been such a great disparity between the popular perception of a theory and its actual standing in the relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature. Today modern neo-Darwinism seems to enjoy almost universal acclaim among science journalists and bloggers, biology textbook writers, and other popular spokespersons for science as the great unifying theory of all biology. High-school and college textbooks present its tenets without qualification and do not acknowledge the existence of any significant scientific criticism of it. At the same time, official scientific organizations—such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS), and the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT)—routinely assure the public that the contemporary version of Darwinian theory enjoys unequivocal support among qualified scientists and that the evidence of biology overwhelmingly supports the theory.

Note: "Intelligent Design" IS NOT equal to "Young Earth Creation" ... following quote from CRB article ...

As for Biblical religion, it forces its way into the discussion although Meyer didn’t invite it, and neither did Darwin. Some have always been bothered by the harm Darwin is said to have done religion. His theory has been thought by some naïfs (fundamentalists as well as intellectuals) to have shown or alleged that the Bible is wrong, and Judeo-Christian religion bunk. But this view assumes a childishly primitive reading of Scripture. Anyone can see that there are two different creation stories in Genesis, one based on seven days, the other on the Garden of Eden. When the Bible gives us two different versions of one story, it stands to reason that the facts on which they disagree are without basic religious significance. The facts on which they agree are the ones that matter: God created the universe, and put man there for a reason. Darwin has nothing to say on these or any other key religious issues.

So for ID haters, you can restart your brain now ... look up Gelernter if you are having trouble. He is NOT "some stupid crazy".

We return to the main theme.

Is it possible that a whole bunch of scientists and institutions could be wrong? See "We are entering an ice age" (1970's), "We are out of oil" (1970's), "cholesterol, eggs, butter BAD --  carbs good!" (1970 to 2015),  ... and I'm certain the beat will go on. Experts ... always certain, frequently wrong. 

Darwinism is based on two very simple hypothesis: 

1. Life began as a singular vastly unlikely accident that we can't repeat even after massive attempts with our most advanced methods. 
2. All the diversity we see descended from that miraculous event and differentiated through the power of mutation and natural selection to us and all life.

So how likely is claim #1? (from Darwin's Doubt (DD)):

“Pre-biological natural selection is a contradiction in terms.” Or, as Nobel Prize–winning molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher Christian de Duve explains, theories of prebiotic natural selection fail because they “need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place.”

That old nasty bootstrap problem.

Ok, so we realize that as far as our current science can tell, the creation of life is simply a miracle. So how about mutation/natural selection? -- now called "neo-Darwinism" based on the knowledge gained in science since Darwin, especially DNA / genome understanding?

Since 1980, when Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould declared that neo-Darwinism “is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy,” the weight of critical opinion in biology has grown steadily with each passing year.

So ... as previously stated, we have a giant disconnect between the dogma of Darwinism and the knowledge coming out of science, and our youth are being indoctrinated with what current science tells us is false. Why?

As you will see often in my reading/writing, it is because humans are RATIONALIZING beings, not "rational". To be rational requires humility, and we are neither humble nor rational by nature. The only proven way to become more rational (proven by pre-"progressive" Western civilization) is to become more humble, best stated in Proverbs 9:10 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." When you are humble, you are better able to seek knowledge/wisdom because you don't believe you know it all!

Or, if you prefer philosophy, Socrates is considered to be the wisest man because he knew that he knew nothing, and was therefore always learning, rather than relying on dogma. 

Throw that fundamental humility away and you get arrogance and human dogma -- "the survival of the fittest", faith in "progress" (social Darwinism), "the majority is always right", etc

As we have gained more knowledge about the "programming" or "language of life" ... DNA, RNA, proteins, peptides, etc the odds against Darwin have grown ever more extreme.  Following quote from CRB article ...

But neo-Darwinianism understands that mutations are rare, and successful ones even scarcer. To balance that out, there are many organisms and a staggering immensity of time. Your chances of winning might be infinitesimal. But if you play the game often enough, you win in the end, right? After all, it works for Powerball!

Do the numbers balance out? Is Neo-Darwinian evolution plausible after all? Axe reasoned as follows. Consider the whole history of living things—the entire group of every living organism ever. It is dominated numerically by bacteria. All other organisms, from tangerine trees to coral polyps, are only a footnote. Suppose, then, that every bacterium that has ever lived contributes one mutation before its demise to the history of life. This is a generous assumption; most bacteria pass on their genetic information unchanged, unmutated. Mutations are the exception. In any case, there have evidently been, in the whole history of life, around 10⁴⁰ bacteria—yielding around 10⁴⁰ mutations under Axe’s assumptions. That is a very large number of chances at any game. But given that the odds each time are 1 to 10⁷⁷ against, it is not large enough. The odds against blind Darwinian chance having turned up even one mutation with the potential to push evolution forward are 10⁴⁰x(1/10⁷⁷)—10⁴⁰tries, where your odds of success each time are 1 in 10⁷⁷ — which equals 1 in 10³⁷. In practical terms, those odds are still zero. Zero odds of producing a single promising mutation in the whole history of life. Darwin loses.

I'm struck by the similarity of what we are finding in biology is to what we are finding in cosmology. As I posted in my old blog, the odds against a UNIVERSE with the exact physics constants so that our world could exist are around 10^-400

So the odds against the world being here at all reduce to "way impossible", and the basic tenets of Darwinism reduce to mega negative exponent odds, why would one NOT want to rethink some of the basic premises of our secular dogma?

Well, for the same reasons that Luther was extremely brave to question the dogma of the Roman church -- the "powers that be" tend to get VERY angry when their dogma is questioned! Christ clearly declared that church and state ought to be separate ("my kingdom is not of this world"), but of course humans want their dogma to be universal (questioning it is "hate speech") ... so the Catholic Church became increasingly synonymous with "the state" prior to the Reformation, and thus failed the "not of this world" requirement. To disagree made one a "heretic", worthy of being burned at the stake. This tended to give Christianity a bad name, much like Naziism gave Fascism a bad name.  

The "enlightenment/reformation" re-separated church and state, but as people became more and more "enlightened" (secular, materialist, atheist, etc) the restraining force of Christian faith was abandoned and human nature took over. We are natural dogmatists ... we like to have a very firm faith that we are RIGHT and the "other side" is WRONG ... the only proven way out of this dilemma is humbly practiced Christian faith (to avoid the pre-Reformation Catholic heresy). The modern dogma is secular humanism, and if you disagree you may well be "cancelled". 

So now the secular dogma of Darwinism, progressivism, humanism, etc seeks to suppress "heresies" and demand that their dogma be inculcated in the youth through schooling, media, etc, and all questioning of that dogma must be suppressed for our own "good". Our "enlightenment" has now become what pre-reformation Catholic Church once was. We all have a dogma (worldview). Only through faith in Christ are we by Grace able to keep our dogma living as opposed to dead.

Looking forward to this journey!

Shantung Compound

https://www.amazon.com/Shantung-Compound-Story-Women-Pressure-ebook/dp/B00A73J83U/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=shantung+compound+kindle&qid=1575398456&sr=8-1

A must read recounting of a well educated liberal mugged by the reality of life in a fairly humane prison camp in WW2 China, that gives factual insight into the reality of human nature. He starts with a lot of faith in human nature being "good" and due to the reality he observes in the camp,  comes to the conclusion that to the extent our society continues to believe in the basic goodness of human nature, we are certainly bound for hell on Earth.

The story of Block 49 ... one room having 11 men and another having 9, and the appeals to reason, justice, etc having zero effect is one of the realities that blew a hole in the Harvard Philosophy graduates worldview.

But in Block 49 men understood—they understood fully. They understood that a “reform” meant their own loss, and so they fought that reform, whatever its rationality and justice, as if it were a plague, a poisonous thing. Self-interest seemed almost omnipotent next to the weak claims of logic and fair play. Ironically, in this first and most logically clear of all our many cases, our committee, if justice were to be done, finally had to appeal to the least rational of all principles: the authority of force. We asked Mr. Izu to tell this recalcitrant dorm to take one more man, which they did readily enough—and we heard no more from Block 49.

Gilkey had a firm faith in human nature, reason, proper organizational structure, etc ... what he found out is that it is character that is the bedrock on which life and civilization are built. Unless you go to gulag type measures (and you will mostly fail even if you do), you must find something to believe in beyond human nature!

This point was increasingly apparent to me during the last year whenever we would look for a new stoker, cook, or kitchen helper. The question uppermost in the minds of the Labor Committee and the managers was no longer, “Has he the skill to do his job?” but rather, “Has he the honesty to be trusted with these supplies?” For the skill, while important, could be learned, but the integrity could not. Yet it was indispensable to our common life. However highly developed our technology might have been, a technique was of no real service in the hands of a dishonest man.

...better philosophy, a clearer and more coherent way of thinking about things will not be enough. Only a change in the mode and character of man’s existence will resolve this sort of problem. If the self were to find a new center from which both its own health and security as well as its creative relation with the neighbor might flow, such a possibility alone could provide the answer to this dilemma.

So what is a culture to do? Essentially exactly what we have thrown away.

Only in God is there an ultimate loyalty that does not breed injustice and cruelty, and a meaning from which nothing in heaven or on earth can separate us.

He doesn't claim a specific faith, but he does confirm that both moralism and mysticism will not socially save us. I recommend you read the book, and if you want to understand what he sees as working, LCMS Lutheran would be very close! 

Spirituality Of The Cross

GoodReads Link

This is now my top book for those seeking an introduction to Christianity and/or those wanting to understand the different philosophical and theological approaches to life, and especially LCMS Lutheran life with God. (p25)

"Adolf Koeberle notes three kinds of spiritual aspiration: moralism, in which the will seeks to achieve perfection of conduct; speculation, in which the mind seeks to achieve perfection of understanding; and mysticism, in which the soul seeks to achieve perfection by becoming one with God."

I grew up in a Baptist moralist tradition -- and I was never close to good enough. I spent a lot of time in speculation -- the endless search for more and more knowledge and "wisdom" -- and nobody is ever saved by knowledge! Man, especially in our generally materialist and hyper-secular world, really likes to think that he is somehow in control!

We cannot perfect our conduct, try as we might. We cannot understand God through our own intellects. We cannot become one with God. Instead of human beings having to do these things, Lutheran spirituality teaches that God does them for us—He becomes one with us in Jesus Christ; He reveals Himself to our feeble understandings by His Word; He forgives our conduct and, in Christ, lives the perfect life for us.

Lutherans believe that God does it all -- which is the only way that works since we weak humans are way too weak and sinful even begin to save ourselves!

"Lutheran spirituality is a sacramental spirituality, centered in the conviction that the Holy Spirit actually descends in the waters of Baptism and that Christ is really present in the bread and wine of Holy Communion."

Coming from the Baptist tradition where Baptism and Communion were mere symbols of "following Christ", rather than real divine interventions in our life as the Bible says ... "Baptism now saves you", and "This IS my body and blood", the sacraments are especially dear for me.

“When our sins and conscience oppress us,” Luther writes, “we strengthen ourselves and take comfort and say,’Nevertheless, I am baptized."

Highly Recommended!

Tolstoy, Confessions

https://www.amazon.com/Confession-Religious-Writings-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140444734

I'm going to run the "confession" together with the other works in this short book ... "What is Religion", "Religion and Morality", and "The Law of Love and Violence".

When Tolstoy was in his 50's, already well known and admired as an author around the world, he came to a point of crisis which he covers in chapter 4. He had realized (in chapter 3), that his former thought of the morality and purpose of "living in conformity with progress" was nonsense. Anything, no matter how horrible could be justified in the name of "progress". This writing was done prior to WWI, and even prior to the Russian Revolution ... he saw the likely outcome of the dream of "progressivism"-- 10's of millions dead from Nazism and Communism in the 20th century.

He becomes extremely suicidal, and what saves him is what he sees as a revelation that he has an eternal soul and that God has a purpose and meaning for all of this. Being a genius, he immediately skips over the idea of "wisdom" (fear of God), and the fact that he has none of it (wisdom) next to God, as well as forgetting that the human heart is "full of it", but the "it is shit". He then proceeds to cherry pick the Bible as he sees fit, much like Jefferson did in creating the "Jefferson Bible", a "bible" devoid of anything other than a deist god who totally keeps his hands off his creation.

Tolstoy hates "the church", virtually all sorts of government, and postulates a "divine nature" at the core of all humans that just needs to be nurtured (by ourselves) separate from all historical creeds and philosophy. At one level, he realizes that "religion" is a requirement for people living in community ... but is uncertain of what such a "religion" might be.

The book is mainly interesting because it was written by Tolstoy.