Taking Thoughts Captive

What you read and how deeply you read matters almost as much as how you love, work, exercise, vote, practice charity, strive for social justice, cultivate kindness and courtesy, worship if you are capable of worship. The mind is an activity and will decay into dark inertia if not sustained by the sustenance of reading.

The great poems, plays, novels, stories teach us how to go on living, even when submerged under forty fathoms of bother and distress. If you live ninety years you will be a battered survivor. Your own mistakes, accidents, failures at otherness beat you down. Rise up at dawn and read something that matters as soon as you can.

— Harold Bloom, from How to Read and Why

#reading #quotes

(h/t: The Hammock Papers)

O LORD God of our Fathers, Whose merciful ear is open unto our prayer, and from Whom alone must come our help: Regard in compassion Thy people, upon whom has fallen the scourge of war, that they may take to heart Thy righteous judgments, be prepared for all trials, sustained and comforted in all distresses, and be graciously delivered, in Thine own time and way, from all threatening calamities; through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Amen.

— Common Service Book of the Lutheran Church, 1917

#prayers

I've always been enthralled by 20th century dystopia fiction: Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World, Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, and McCarthy's The Road. What intrigues me most about these particular works, except the last one, is their pointed critique of society's trajectory and their eerily prophetic gaze into a future (for them) that has in many ways become, quite frighteningly, the reality in which we presently live.

Today, I'm thinking about a word made infamous in Orwell's 1984, “Doublethink.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “thought marked by the acceptance of gross contradictions and falsehoods, especially when used as a technique of self-indoctrination.”

Specifically, given the hostilities between Israel and Iran over the past few days, the notion of doublethink is on my mind. For instance, think about the following ideas we are supposed to hold simultaneously regardless of how contradictory they might seem:

• Israel's pre-emptive attack on Iran is 'self-defense,' but Iran's response to being attacked is 'aggression' or 'terrorism' (see Footnote)

• Israel claims the right to develop/maintain nuclear weapons for itself, but Israel rejects Iran's right to develop/maintain the same type of weapon

• Iran and the U.S. intelligence community claim that Iran is not capable (or nearly capable) of fielding nuclear weapons, but Israel's intelligence claims otherwise, in spite of the fact that U.S. intelligence rejects Israel's 'evidence'

Before jumping to conclusions and name-calling, I am NOT suggesting Iran is morally right or morally superior to Israel or the U.S. I am not. At the same time, however, I am not going to be so hypocritical or arrogant as to suggest that the U.S. or any other nation has the right to decree what technology other nations might develop and possess. The decisions made by nations, like all choices, come with their own benefits and consequences.

Let us not pretend that any nation in history has consistently acted as a disinterested, benign actor seeking the best interest of the world at large. That is delusional. Let's at least be honest and realize that every nation acts only in its own self-interest, and that creates friction, conflict, atrocities, suffering, and war. This will not change until Christ comes to set all things right, so our prayer must always be 'Maranatha. Come, Lord Jesus.”

#politics #theology

(Footnote): Interestingly, the idea of pre-emptive self-defense is consistently and historically rejected by the Christian Just War tradition. George W. Bush articulated the idea that a nation (specifically the U.S.) has the right to take military action against perceived threats before actual attacks...an idea that has taken root in the U.S. but has been consistently rejected through history as incompatible with the Just War tradition. I continue to be on the side of tradition and reject pre-emptive self-defense as an oxymoron.

The little book of Amos is one of my favorites among the Old Testament prophets. Though written over 2,700 years ago, many of the themes Amos takes up and many of the warnings he levies against Israel are just as pertinent to the Church today. It is an amazing book, worthy of our prayerful, detailed study. When studying Amos, it is easy to see how the first six chapters are perpetually-relevant (Who can fail to find application to those famous words, “Let justice roll down like water”?), but then we come to the last three chapter and sometimes wonder what to do with them…especially the final chapter.

Having proclaimed very clearly that Israel would be carted off into captivity by the Assyrians (Amos 9.4) and destroyed from the face of the earth (Amos 9.8), God then promises, “Yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob.” As is always true of the prophets, God’s threat (promise) of judgment is accompanied by his promise of restoration. The book ends with the following, grace-filled proclamation:

On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the LORD who does this thing.

“Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “When the plowman shall overtake the reaper, And the treader of grapes him who sows seed; The mountains shall drip with sweet wine, And all the hills shall flow with it. I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them. I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up From the land I have given them,” Says the LORD your God.

– Amos 9.11-15 (NKJV)

In the last hundred years, many people have seen this promise fulfilled, at least in part, in the 1917 Balfour Declaration or the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Here, they say, God is making good on his promise to ‘bring back the captives’ of Israel in their rightful territory.

What should we make of this interpretation? Does it rightly understand this prophecy and properly interpret God’s promises?

In a word, no. In stronger words, absolutely not!

There are some areas of the Old Testament that are difficult to interpret and some that have consistently been interpreted in multiple ways through the millennia, but this is NOT one of them. This passage is plainly interpreted and explained in the New Testament book of Acts, and where Scripture interprets itself, there should be no confusion.

Looking at Acts 15, after Barnabas and Paul describe God’s work through them among the Gentiles, the Apostle James takes advantage of the stunned silence, likely as these Jewish Christians realize God has made a great turning point in his salvific work by including Gentiles. James speaks to the Jerusalem Council about Peter’s missionary work. He quotes Amos 9.11-12 about rebuilding the tabernacle of David and points out that God has fulfilled this promise.

In other words, David’s tabernacle has been rebuilt, past tense. God has fulfilled this promise, says Peter under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

How? David’s dynasty was restored in Jesus Christ, at which point Gentiles started in earnest to seek the Lord, as evidenced by the reports from Barnabas, Paul, and Peter.

We need not look for some future work of God to rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem. Such an idea has no place in redemptive history, according to the plain testimony of Scripture. Why not? Because it has already been accomplished in the life and work of Jesus Christ, through whose grace Jews and Gentiles are ‘saved in the same manner’ (Acts 15.11).

Thanks be to God!

#theology

In today's world, the art of listening seems to be under threat. Social media has trained us to believe that what matters most is what we have to say. We're talking more than ever, broadcasting our thoughts to the world with every post, tweet, and status update. But in this cacophony of voices, it often seems like nobody is truly hearing each other.

We've become so focused on crafting our next response, our next witty comment, that we've forgotten how to listen. We skim, we scan, we scroll, but we rarely stop to absorb and consider what others are saying. We're more connected than ever, yet in many ways, we're more isolated, trapped in echo chambers of our own making.

This is why the skill of listening—real, active, engaged listening—is more crucial than ever. It's a skill that can set you apart in a world where everyone is clamoring to be heard. It's a skill that can open doors, build relationships, and lead to insights and opportunities that you might otherwise miss.

-George Raveling, What You're Made For: Powerful Life Lessons from My Career in Sports (H/T: A Layman's Blog)

#quotes #culture

There is no neutrality between gratitude and ingratitude. Those who are not grateful soon begin to complain of everything.

— Thomas Merton, Thoughts on Solitude

#quotes #culture #theology

According to Pew Research:

Those 60 and older – a group increasingly populated by aging Baby Boomers – now spend more than half of their daily leisure time, four hours and 16 minutes, in front of screens, mostly watching TV or videos.

For the love of all things true, good, and beautiful (and for your own edification), put down that blasted phone and be rebellious...

Take a walk.

Pick up a book.

Do a crossword puzzle.

Write a real letter, on paper.

Listen to a record or CD.

Pet an animal.

Work in your garden.

Daydream.

Be bored.

Do something real.

...and enjoy it.

#life

On the Destructive Nature of the Left and the Proper Response of the Right

I read an article today that described the fundamental nature of the Left as 'negative,' i.e. opposed to things, typically the historic status quo. I think I would go further than that and say that the Left is fundamentally destructive / de-constructive and characterized by the desire to create disorder (more quickly than entropy disorders things in a fallen world). Over time, the immediate causes will change and adjust, according to the soft spots or easy gains that present themselves to this philosophy. This explains why the cause of the day has shifted from sexual and reproductive 'freedom' to political correctness to LGBTQ-alphabet soup to wokeness to antisemitism to...whatever will come next.

This is very negative, I admit; however, I am not especially charitable about my understanding of the Right as it is currently understood and exemplified.

The Right, it seems to me, is also characteristically 'negative' but in a different way. Instead of being focused on the destruction of the current state of things, the Right generally defines itself by being against the Left. It seems very rare to me, indeed, that anyone on the Right actually puts forth a genuinely positive position that is not a reaction to something the Left has already tried to destroy (e.g. being 'pro-life').

Understood this way, it is clear that the general, 'big picture,' macro drift of a society will NEVER be anything but to the Left. It will always drift leftward over time if the Right is not genuinely FOR ideas but reacts only against the destruction attempted by the Left. The Right, in this paradigm, is also fundamentally negative. Both sides work together to move a society, at greater or lesser speeds over time, toward self-destruction and societal suicide.

This is Satanic and demonic, full stop. If you don't believe me, think back on the just the last two hundred years of world history.

That this view is correct is self-evident if we pause and reflect on the positions currently held by the Right in the United States that are FAR left of positions held by the Left even less than a century ago. Contrast the views of Donald Trump on abortion or same sex marriage with Bill Clinton—who is more to the Left? Compare the theological views of 'conservative' churches today on female clergy or premarital sex with mainline churches of 50 years ago—who is more to the Left?

The Right, as it operates today, is a retardant to leftward motion rather than a genuinely creative or positive agent acting in society. To recover a truly positive influence, the Right must define itself by what it supports and not by what it is against, AND it must stop repeatedly conceding ground and drifting left itself.

Said positively, the Right (i.e. “Conservatives”) must stop trying to conserve things and start trying to recreate and restore them according to the Word of God and His intention for individuals and society.

Instead of the Right being 'conservative' it must be 'restorational.'

We ought not be trying to simply slow down society's movement to the left but restoring God's intended order, beliefs, and practice.

Who is up for such a monumental task? Certainly none of the political class or academia. It must come from God's people individually, who themselves are recreated and restored, and corporately, as the Body of Christ.

It will not come from anywhere else. Indeed, it cannot.

#culture #politics #theology