text:
Category Archives: Confession
Dialoguing On The Need For Christian Dialogue
I just made a discovery – about my own interpretive process. The process itself is not something new to me, I guess it is the way I have been thinking for quite some time. But the end result of my thinking has just become much more clear. You'll have to wade through the whole post for my last sentence to make any sense. But it is where I am today.
Let me begin by saying dialogue is great. I heartily support dialogue. Dialogue is necessary and in most cases is quite pleasant. Dialogue is absolutely necessary if two people, or two groups, are to find common ground and negotiate a mutually acceptable position in the midst of a heated and bitter conflict.
Which is why the Church of Christ should never, ever, in any way, shape or form, enter into a dialogue with anyone or anything.
A dialogue takes place between two equals, or between a lesser who appeals to a greater, in the hopes of finding a mutual agreement. A dialogue is a prologue to a compromise. Married couples sometimes need to have a refereed dialogue. Big companies and organized labor quite often need to come to a bargaining table and have a refereed dialogue. Prosecuting and Defending attorneys dialogue quite often to avoid the bother and expense of a trial. On occasion antagonistic countries need to be brought to a negotiating table in order to have a peaceful dialogue.
The Church is not a marriage partner to anyone or anything in this world. The Church is not a big company, nor is it an amalgamation of unionized workers. The Church is not a country, or an aggrieved individual. The Church has no equal on this earth with whom it can compromise. When the Church compromises it loses its nature. It simply ceases to be the Church. To put it bluntly, the Church has no one or nothing with whom it can dialogue.
Over the past 50 years virtually every church group, religious group, denomination, whatever you want to call it, has entered into a "dialogue" with a group that wanted it to become more modern, more "relevant," more in tune with secular practices and mores. The "Social Gospel," militant feminism and now militant homosexuality are just three areas in which a religious group has "dialogued" and come out looking far more like the world than when it entered the conversation.
Can you name a major religious group, denomination, or independent church that is theologically more conservative or less "progressive" today than it was 50 years ago? I cannot. Some may not have changed (although, I would argue very few), but I cannot think of a single Christian faith group that is more conservative today than it was just a scant half-century ago.
The only way a group has been able to maintain any kind of conservative, narrowly biblical interpretive stance is to split off from a larger, more "progressive" movement. So we have seen huge defections from the Anglican/Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church and many Baptist and Church of Christ congregations. Whenever anyone says, "We need to reexamine our beliefs about…." what they are really saying is "we need to change our beliefs about….." and "dialogue" becomes the vehicle by which that change is effected.
All of which makes me very nervous and very skeptical when I hear certain voices promote a new or ongoing "dialogue" between the church and atheist movements, or agnostic movements, or further dialogue with proponents of homosexuality or feminism or militarism or any other king of "ism" for that matter. This would extend, by the way, to "dialogues" with religious groups with whom I might share one or two core convictions, but who have chosen to make substantive departures from what I believe to be Scripture itself is to be viewed.
So my question for these proponents is this – what exactly do you mean by "dialogue?" The way I read the Bible, the Church of Christ does not negotiate anything. The Church does not have the power to compromise with anyone or anything. The Church of Christ is not an equal to any secular power or entity. Therefore, the Church of Christ is under no compulsion or expectation to "dialogue" with anyone.
Nor am I, as a member of the Church of Christ, authorized or deputized to "dialogue" with anyone or any group and speak for "The Church of Christ." I can only speak for my own convictions, my own beliefs, and my own interpretations of Scripture. And, as much as they may want to argue, no one can speak for me based on his or her interpretations, convictions, or beliefs. I cannot even speak authoritatively for the congregation of which I am a part, and for which I serve as a minister.
In a sentence, the "Church" is a group of people who live their lives in a submissive relationship to the absolute authority of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
So, when you say "the church needs to dialogue with ……," exactly what authority are you giving the Church that God himself has not given it? And who will speak for the "Church" that you think needs to enter into this dialogue? And what power or authority does that person (or persons) have to bargain with?
Membership in the Church is non-negotiable. That is the thing about the church that the world never has understood, does not now understand, and will not likely ever understand. Discipleship is a total and complete surrender to a Lord and Savior who demands our complete devotion.
So, when I say that I cannot enter into a dialogue with a certain group or with a certain person, I am not trying to be mean, nasty, ugly or unduly obstinate. I am simply living out my conviction that I do not have have the power, the authority, nor the freedom to "dialogue" with someone who refuses to accept the God under whom I have placed my life, and His Word, which I hold to be absolute in guiding my life. I can teach, I can "give a reason for the hope that is within me." I can evangelize – that is – spread the good news. But I cannot, and I will not, lower my understanding of the nature of the Church of Christ to make it be something that is equal to or lesser than a vain philosophy of this world.
And that, dear reader, something that I am discovering in increasing measure, is profoundly unpopular.
Apocalyptic Surrender
A word about surrender. Surrender does not mean that you fight to the last drop of blood of the last man and then call it quits. That is called, "being defeated." The only way surrender can actually be defined as surrender is when the person, or persons, doing the surrendering actually have the capacity to keep on fighting, and possibly of even overcoming, their enemy. Surrender is taking your entirely healthy team and walking off the field in the third quarter when you are only down by a field goal. Walking off the field when you are down by 7 touchdowns, there is only three seconds left in the game and you are down to 8 players is not surrender. Let's be honest about our terms.
A word about apocalyptic. An apocalypse is a written account of a special vision given to a messenger of God relating to an explanation of the reality of human events as seen from heaven's perspective. It also contains a message about future judgment – of reward for the obedient faithful and punishment for the rebellious guilty. Apocalypses were written to encourage the faithful to keep the faith, to look at things from heaven's perspective and not from the perspective of the world. Apocalypses are ultimately about victory. God is in control, even death cannot change the eventual outcome of the game.
So, why speak of an apocalyptic surrender? Simply this – the only way to achieve victory from the point of view of heaven is to quit playing the game from the world's point of view.
In other words, surrender whether it looks like you might still win or you are hopelessly overmatched. Because, ultimately, if you win according to the world's rules you will lose according to God's rules.
I think the church needs to learn this. I think the church needs to learn how to surrender. We need one huge, global act of apocalyptic surrender.
We need to quit playing the game according to the rules of the world. We need to quit trying to make the church more pleasant, more attractive, more relevant, more beneficial, more consumer friendly. The one who established the church died on a cross, for crying out loud. And we are trying to "attract" people by making that cross – more attractive??
We need to quit playing power games. The world will not be transformed by political machinations. We can legislate until we are blue in the face and all we will accomplish is a deeper shade of blue. Jesus surrendered every form of power except the power of selfless surrender. In other words, Jesus embodied apocalyptic surrender. He looked at victory from God's point of view, and transformed the concept of power to the idea of submission.
We need to quit playing public relations games. We need to regain the moral capacity to call sin, sin. We need to realize, and confess, that we are sinners – every stinking wretched one of us. We cannot be forgiven until we are condemned, and we cannot be condemned if we have eliminated the concept of guilt. But, when we say that sin exists and that we are guilty of sins as well as every other person is guilty of sins we violate every principle of public relations. Public relations demands that we whitewash over our own sins (to create and maintain a healthy "self-esteem") and to whitewash over the sins of others (to create and maintain healthy inter-personal relationships.)
Apocalyptic surrender demands that we have a complete reevaluation of our behavior. We, as disciples of Christ, need to change not only the way we act, but even the way we think. In apocalyptic thinking losing is winning and winning is losing. We become victorious through surrender. The Lion of the tribe of Judah is the Lamb who, though slain, stands as conqueror.
I must admit, I'm not exactly sure how to do this. I am far too much a creature of the modern world. I just know that I need to quit. I need to surrender.
And at the end of the journey
We shall bow down on bended knee,
And with the angels up in heaven
We'll sing the song of victory.
(from the song, "We Shall Assemble")
Falling Off The Shallow End
Every year, or at the very least, every other year, I try to read some of the classics of Christian spirituality – whether ancient or modern. One book that I return to frequently is Richard J. Foster's Prayer: Finding the Heart's True Home. No matter how many times I read it I am encouraged, challenged, and hopefully I grow just a little bit more in my prayer life. I highly recommend the book.
Today, as I was finishing the book for the I don't know how many times, I came across this little phrase. Foster was talking about "authoritative prayer," the prayer that occurs when we call upon God's power to act immediately in this world. He was discussing the possible pitfalls to such prayer, and in particular, his own reticence in even using authoritative prayer. And then he said this, "In my concern over falling off the deep end, I realized that I just might fall off the shallow end." (Richard J. Foster, Prayer: Finding the Heart's True Home, p. 235).
I'm a sucker for beautiful phraseology, and Foster is one of the most gifted Christian authors I have read. This book is full of memorable quotes and powerful, life changing lessons. But perhaps none is quite so powerful as the idea of being so afraid of doing something wrong that we fail to do anything at all. That particular fear has been expressed for millennia – but I have never heard of the fear of falling off the shallow end.
Anyone who has gone swimming knows the fear of being in water that is "over our head." That means we cannot touch the bottom of the pool, lake, ocean, river, etc. We must depend upon our swimming skills, or at the very least, our floating skills. But who is ever afraid of going into the kiddie pool? Who is afraid of knee-deep water? Who is afraid of falling off the shallow end? It is a beautiful metaphor.
But metaphors are useless if we fail to understand the deeper message behind the image. When we fear that which should cause no fear at all we betray our lack of faith in God. If God can and does give us the ability to swim, or at least float, when we have fallen off the deep end, why are we so terrified of the wading pool?
The church has never been defeated, and will never be defeated, by the great cataclysms of life. In fact, in the face of great trials and persecutions the church has not only survived, it has thrived.
The church in the United States has only recently started to experience a major exodus, a major weakening of numbers, and it has occurred at precisely the moment when the church is the most affluent and protected that it has ever been. We have failed to speak with boldness and clarity on social issues and political issues and moral issues that are confronting us every day and from every possible angle. We are being defeated not by the enormity of the opposition, but by the inadequacy of our own faith. Increasingly the church is viewed as irrelevant and archaic. We have feared "falling off the deep end" and we have succeeded in drowning in the wading pool.
Foster's book is powerful and challenging. No matter how many times I read it I gain new insights and am pricked to deepen my prayer life. I need to pray each of the chapters that Foster discusses. I need more inward, upward and outward prayer. I need to have more faith in the God who not only gave me the avenue of prayer, but commanded me to use it. I do not want to be guilty of thinking that I can do everything by myself. I want to be more thoughtful of others in prayer. And I want to tap into the awesome power that God has promised me through the avenue of prayer.
And, I especially do not want to be guilty of falling off the shallow end of the pool anymore.
Color of Skin or Content of Character?
When will we be able to move past our racism? (I speak primarily of the United States, but other countries no doubt have their racial issues as well.) When will we, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech, judge a person based solely on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin? I have an answer, but I will save it for the end of this post.
I reacted very strongly to the verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial. I thought the verdict was wrong, a fiasco, a blatant miscarriage of justice. Within 48 hours one of the so-called "unbiased" jurors revealed she had signed a book deal to "tell all" about the trial and the deliberations. Public outrage blew that bald-faced self-promotion out of the water. But this same juror showed up on a national TV show and spoke about her experiences. She referred to the defendant as "George" repeatedly. She spoke explicitly about a "stand your ground" law that was never even referenced in the trial, nor in the jury instructions (the wording, as far as I can tell, came from a self-defense provision, but not the law that received the nickname, "stand your ground.") She allowed that Zimmerman should not have exited his vehicle that dark and rainy night, but almost in the same breath said that race had nothing to do with the jury's deliberations, nor did she think that racial profiling was a part of the case.
In other words, this supposedly unbiased juror confirmed every one of my public and private fears about this trial. She connected totally on an emotional level with Zimmerman (poor little Georgie, he got a boo-boo on his noggin). Even though Trayvon Martin was doing absolutely nothing wrong, and that Zimmerman never should have exited his vehicle, she still bought into the defense argument that it was Martin that initiated the confrontation, not Zimmerman. We will never know who started that fight, and all we have is Zimmerman's story. According to this juror there were three votes for guilty and three for acquittal when the jurors first started their deliberations. One juror actually felt Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd degree murder, two others felt he was guilty of manslaughter. That means that the three who leaned toward acquittal were able to change the minds of the three who leaned toward conviction. I wonder how they managed to do that?
Actually, I think I know. All through this trial Zimmerman was portrayed as the victim. Martin has been referred to as a thug, a hoodlum, a gang-banger, street trash. Zimmerman sat in the courtroom all spiffed up in his designer suits looking absolutely cherubic. And don't feed me that "half Hispanic" line. Zimmerman looks as lilly white as Princess Kate. Those jurors saw this as a white/black issue, whether they would admit to it or not. It was simply inconceivable that a good white boy would be the instigator of a racial conflict. That black boy got what he "deserved."
This morning a poll was released that just further confirmed my suspicions. As long as the link is valid, you can find the story here. To summarize, the poll revealed that by a significant margin white people and Republicans feel that there is no racial problem in the US, and that the justice system is just fine. Not surprisingly, black people and Democrats feel that racism is alive and well in the US, and that the justice system is broken. In my mind this disparity can only be interpreted one way – when you are in power, when you have absolutely no fear of being profiled by the color of your skin, when you do not have to fear having some vigilante with a loaded gun follow your 17 year old son simply because he "looks suspicious," when you can put on a suit and tie and have a juror call you by your first name, then the world is pretty rosy for you. Conversely, when you cannot go to a convenience store and buy a snack without having somebody question your behavior, when you cannot walk down the street without having people move away from you, if you fear having your child pulled over by a policeman for "driving while black," if your son can be shot dead and have the killer acquitted from even the most benign charges, then you are not going to have a very cheerful view of America and its judicial system.
By an overwhelming majority, white people and Republicans just simply do not get this. There is none quite so blind as he who will not see.
For the record, I am a white middle aged male. But a few years ago one of my very good friends told me about being stopped by a policeman in Houston, TX, for no other reason than he was a black man driving where he should not have been driving. "Driving while black" is what they call it. Maybe for the first time in my life I felt another man's pain because of blatant racism. It changed me.
If I am not mistaken, God calls this behavior "sin." And he has always called it "sin" and he will always call it "sin."
How will America heal its racial divisions? The only way that I see forward is for all of us, white, black, brown, yellow, red – even green or purple, to actually confess that we have a racial problem. That's right – all of us. White on black, black on white, brown on black, red on white – every color against every other color. Racism does not cut one way, or even two ways. Racism cuts every direction, and we cannot even remotely consider ourselves to be a Christian people as long as we harbor prejudices against someone simply because of the color of his or her skin.
Maybe one day we will be able to judge people based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. But as the Zimmerman verdict, and the very public comments by that juror demonstrates, that day will not occur any time soon.
Certainly not as long as a few scratches on the back of one man's head are viewed as more significant than a gunshot wound in a young man's chest.
Supreme Court Validates Homosexual Marriage – Places the Church at Crossroads
Boy, did I nail it. I predicted here that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) would strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as well as the Proposition 8 in California which denied homosexual marriage. While the court did not actually rule on Prop. 8, they refused to rule against the lower court ruling which invalidated the proposition, thereby basically throwing the proposition out.
Make no mistake – completely removing the morality of the issue for a brief moment, these rulings are monumental – epic even.
Stop and think about what just happened. Both of the rulings overturned the legislative or the popular vote of a majority of elected officials or the population of a state. The DOMA was enacted by both houses of government of the United States and signed into law by President Clinton. Proposition 8 passed by a significant majority (if it had been a presidential election, the winning side would have claimed an 'overwhelming mandate'.) In viewing both of these popular statements by a majority of Americans as being in violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the SCOTUS basically said that they, not the elected officials of the country, nor the general will of the population of a state, have the right to make the laws of the country. No piece of legislation that has been or ever will be passed that in any way, manner or form infringes upon a person's real or imagined rights under the 5th Amendment will be considered legal.
And that, my dear readers, is epic. These rulings make Roe v. Wade look like a kindergartener's crayon drawing when it comes to long term repercussions. We have been dealing with the fallout of Roe v. Wade for the past 40 years and we still have not figured out exactly what "right to privacy" means. That will all seem very tame in comparison to what was just delivered by the SCOTUS.
So, what is the church supposed to do in response?
Any legislative recourse has been effectively eliminated by the ruling itself. It matters not if the Senate and House of Representatives both passed a law unanimously declaring that marriage should be defined as between a male and female (and that was never going to happen anyway). The SCOTUS would simply strike that law down as well. I really do not think people understand how massive this ruling is. Our legislators do not matter anymore. The only law makers who have any power at all right now are the 5 liberal judges who sit on the Supreme Court.
So, Caesar has revealed his hand. The amazing thing is that some people are shocked, utterly amazed, at what just happened. I called it months ago. Anyone with eyes in their faces and ears on their head could have called it. These rulings were as close to "fore-ordained" as anything John Calvin ever proclaimed.
Will this wake the church up? Will we rise out of our slumber? Will we, at long last, finally realize that we are not living in a Christian nation, that the United States Constitution is not inspired by God, that it is a fallible, corrupt and corrupting piece of human governance? Will we learn that the only way to change the course of human events is to change the course of human hearts? Will we quit trying to convert the world to kingdom ethics by passing feeble legislation that can be overturned and erased by 5 utterly corrupt human beings?
Will we ever learn that leaning on the broken reed of human strength is the only sure way to destroy a nation? (Isaiah 36:6; 30:1-5; Ezekiel 29:6-9).
As I said in my earlier piece, this may be the best thing that could have happened to the church – at least in one respect. Now we can no longer hide behind flimsy legislation to advance the kingdom of God.
Let us stop trying to fight Satan with Satan's tools. Let us repent of our misguided attempts to do so and return to the power of our God.
Last time I checked, no court has ever managed to invalidate any of His rulings.
A Meditation on the 10 Commandments (#6)
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you. (Exodus 20:12)
I did not specifically plan to write about parents just before Mother's Day. I guess that was just serendipity. But it does allow me to get something off of my chest. More of that in a moment – but first, let us look at this command.
Have you ever wondered why, after four commands that specifically relate to God and how we are to honor Him, that the first command that relates to our fellow humans is a command to honor our parents? This is not just important, I think this is critical to stop and ponder.
Our culture is respect phobic. Just think about what passes as humor today, what gets the biggest laughs. If a comedian can make a joke about any authority figure the house goes crazy. We disrespect the office of the President of the United States. We disrespect the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court. We disrespect the courts and our police officers. We disrespect spiritual leaders (especially if they are conservative Christian spiritual leaders!) and we disrespect school teachers.
And all of this disrespect begins in the home. We, as a culture, have virtually dismissed the concept of respecting our fathers and our mothers.
Unfortunately, I fear a great deal of this situation began with parents who decided they did not need to be respected. Somewhere back in the 1960's or maybe a decade or so later the latest and greatest philosophy was that parents were not supposed to be authority figures, they were to be their children's best friends. So, respect went out the door and it was replaced with a faux friendship, something that was neither friendship nor was it parental leadership. A generation deprived of parental guidance then went on to raise their children without any real understanding as to how to be parents. Now, at least the third generation of children is being raised by parents who do not know how to instill respect, and more tragically, will not support those adults who are left who are capable of teaching respect.
Respect must be learned, but if there are no teachers, how can it be taught?
Strangely enough, it is exactly during this time that the "Hallmark Card" holidays of Mothers Day and Fathers Day (and now Grandparents Day and who knows what other day we will choose to celebrate) exploded. I think there is a telling sociological process going on here.
Simply put – we are not honoring our parents throughout our normal year, so when that one "special" day comes along we have to assuage our guilt and so we buy flowers, or an expensive necklace, or a fancy gizmo for dad, and we pass that off as "honoring" our mother or our father. How many times will you be told just before Mothers Day or Fathers Day to "honor" your mom or dad by spending a lot of money on something that is either basically pretty trashy or on something that will wilt and fade away within days if not hours? That is honor? Excuse me, but that is buying forgiveness to mollify a guilty conscience.
We don't honor our parents by giving them some cheesy gift once a year. We honor our parents by respecting and obeying them while we are in their homes, and by continuing to honor and respect their guidance throughout our adult years. We honor our parents by raising our children to believe in and to respect the teachings that our parents instilled in us. We honor our parents by working hard and by doing our best in everything that we do. We honor our parents in the way we treat other parents who are both older and younger than we are. We honor our parents by mentoring younger parents in the craft of raising children – and that means that we demand respect from those tyrannical three year olds who absolutely refuse to offer it. We honor our parents with our words, our actions, and our thoughts. Everything that we do communicates either that we respect and honor our parents, or that we could not care less about those who raised us.
We honor our parents when, at that point we must disagree with them, or decide that we must act or believe in a way that our parents would never act or believe, that we still honor and cherish the guidance that brought us to our adult decision. No parent is ever perfect, and in a way it is no dishonor to disagree with our parents. But it is a huge sign of disrespect to mock or disparage the thoughts and beliefs that our parents held deeply. We can disagree in a most holy and honorable manner.
Our "retirement centers" and "nursing homes" and other facilities have become nothing more than warehouses for abandoned and disrespected parents. I know that many older adults can no longer take care of themselves and require specialized attention. I am not speaking about those individuals. I am speaking about those parents whose children cannot be bothered by the physical demands of taking care of an older parent and who simply ship them off to some out-of-the-way institution so that they can maintain their upper middle class lifestyle of soccer games and ballet recitals and country club events.
When we disrespect and dishonor our parents the land will vomit us out. I think that is pretty much the message of Exodus 20:12.
I do not think that day is in our future. I think it is here and now. We live in a land of mockery, abandonment, disrespect. Do not be deceived. God is not mocked. That which a man sows, he shall also reap. I think that is pretty much a New Testament principle. And, sadly, I think we are living it out right now.
"Holy God, as our eternal Father – teach us how to respect. Give us the courage both to respect our elders and to instill respect in our children. Help us to once again live in a land blessed by the sweet odor of respect and honor. Help us to see the error of our way, and lead us back onto the path that we have forsaken so long ago.
A Meditation on the 10 Commandments (#3)
Today, command number 2:
You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6 RSV)
As all the commands have a common thread they must all be read together. But command number two is inextricably linked to command number one, the command to have not other gods before, or beside, God. In my meditation on the first command I listed some, but by no means all, of the possible gods that we set up in opposition to the one, true God.
A graven image may or may not be synonymous with another god. That is to say, a graven image, or an idol, may actually be a false god, or it may be a false representation of the one true God. For continuity sake, in my last post I mentioned that some false gods are power, sex, glory, honor, entertainment, etc. I cannot remember if I mentioned ambition or not, but certainly ambition would be a false god. I believe each of these can be represented with a "graven image" or an idol that represents that god. On the other hand, we may have an image, an idol, that we believe represents the true God, but instead of worshipping the true God, we end up worshipping the idol, which then becomes a false god. In this regard I note that in Exodus 32 the name of the LORD was mentioned in regard to the golden calf that Aaron had created. Also, in 1 Kings 12 when Jeroboam set up the two golden calves in Dan and Bethel he said, "here is your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt" connecting the two graven images to the one true God. Thus, creating a graven image certainly violates the second command, but also may violate the first command.
What are some of our graven images today?
A gun is an idol. It is an idol of the false god of power. It can also be an idol of the false god of safety and security. If I trust in the killing power of cold steel and lifeless wood, I am rejecting the power of the life-giving and life protecting God.
The flag can certainly be an idol. It is the image of political power, and also of an ideology. This is why I am growing very uncomfortable with the concept of pledging allegiance to the flag. In a very real sense I believe we are violating the second command, and possible the first as well, when we do so.
Methods of birth control can be considered idols. They are symbols of our unending fascination and slavery to our sexual natures. When anyone, male or female, loudly protests that "you cannot tell me what I can or cannot do with my body" you can be sure they are not very far away from idolatry.
Houses and cabins can be idols. We have an idol in the cool mountains to escape the summer heat. We have an idol in the warm south to escape the winter snow. We have an idol on wheels that we can drive or pull to escape the tedium of the work week. Some of us have all three, in addition to the mundane little mansion that we inhabit daily.
Health equipment are used as idols. They are images that we worship in order to create the perfectly sculpted and healthy body.
Vehicles are used as idols.
Anything that distracts us from our daily routine can be idols: music instruments, cameras, tools for hobbies, books, computers.
How do you know if any of these, or something else in your life, is an idol? Simply follow two well-traveled trails. The most obvious is the trail of money. How much money do you spend on a particular item? The larger the percentage of your annual income the greater the possibility that it is an idol. The second trail would be the trail of attention devoted to that object, especially measured by time devoted to spending with that object and the emotional attachment you have to that object.
Absolutely unwilling to part with your guns? Say hello to your idol. Salute the flag, pledge "allegiance" to the flag, and bow down before the flag as it passes by? Welcome your idol. Spend thousands of dollars annually and countless hours chasing a little white ball around a carefully manicured park? Meet your idol.
God said not to make any graven image, especially that of something involving a creature only he himself created. We have broken ourselves of worshipping calves and birds and cats and snakes. But mark these words well – our lives are full of idols.
The question is, when we stop and spend some time meditating and thinking about Exodus 20:4-6, will we rid ourselves of those idolatrous behaviors? Or will we make excuses for ourselves, and thus end up infuriating a God who very plainly tells us He will not stand for any created thing to replace Him as the center of our lives?
Dear God, as we contemplate the deeper meaning and application of this second command, please reveal to us our graven images. Purge our lives of our idolatrous thoughts. May we truly and wholly focus on you as our one and only true and living God.
Political Correctness is Killing Me
One thing I want everyone to know about this post – I am attacking myself, not others (at least explicitly). When I refer to others it is to illustrate my failings, not to heap scorn upon derision. This is a confession, not a broadside.
I have been struggling mightily with something over the past few weeks, months, and maybe even years. It has finally bubbled up to the point that I either have to deal with it or it will destroy me. Possibly it has already overcome me, I don't know. Maybe I won't know for quite a while.
But, political correctness is killing me. I don't mean the kind of sloppy journalism or political hatchet jobs that continually assail me. I am talking about my own political correctness and how I seem utterly unable to confront or defeat it. For those of you who follow this blog regularly you might be surprised at that admission. There are times in my writings in which I become (or surrender to) my acerbic self. But, interestingly, that is part of the problem. This is my own little space of the cyber world in which everyone is invited but no one is forced to enter, or stay. If someone does not like what I write they ignore me. Thousands upon thousands assiduously do so on a regular basis. Knowing that, I steam and vent about subjects that are important to me, but obviously not too significant for others.
No, my issue with my own political correctness has to do with those with whom I am forced to deal on a regular, or at least semi-regular basis. I fit the description that was leveled against the apostle Paul (although, to be fair, I believe he disavowed such an attack) that his letters were "weighty and powerful, but his physical appearance is weak, and his public speaking is despicable." (2 Cor. 10:10) I have visions of being a Great White Shark, and ultimately all I manage to portray is a spineless little jellyfish.
There are times in this world in which a person must stand up – speak up and say what needs to be said. Of course, it should go without saying that such statements need to be made in the spirit of love and correction, not hate and malediction. But still, you cannot read the gospels without seeing a Jesus that was both loving and welcoming as well as direct and, to put it mildly, politically incorrect.
And so I struggle with the balance – and all too often I find myself swallowing my words, backing off of a confrontation that I think needs to be made, weakly surrendering to the pressure of the moment or of the possible consequences should my objection be objected to. I defer – and end up kicking myself for it. Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Jeremiah, Amos, Peter, Paul, Martin Luther, Dietrich Bonhoeffer – all had the spine to stand up and confront not only the minions of politics but also the minions of religion and all either paid a huge price or at least had the threat of paying a huge personal price.
I'm tired of my own cowardice, but I'm not sure how to overcome it without being churlish and vindictive.
I've just had it to my eyebrows with the skinny jeans, t-shirt and goatee wearing crowd lecturing me about how to fix the church when they have already written the church off as being unimportant. I'm sick to my stomach of authors criticizing spiritual leaders who have been loving and serving the church longer than these twenty-somethings have been alive. I recoil when I hear some academically trained yet theologically ignorant sycophant use some word like "missional" or "incarnational" as if by wielding such verbal weaponry they can slay their Quixotic opponent.
I stand mute when I hear a racist or homosexual loathing comment made in a Bible class, and I offer no word of censure when the same racist or homophobe stands a few minutes later to implore God's blessings over the table of His Son's memorial feast. I do not confront the obvious and blatant misrepresentation of Scripture that is done in manifest adoration of "the ancient paths." When someone who leaves his Bible on the church pew so he won't forget it next Sunday upbraids me because my hours of preparation and reading the accumulated wisdom of centuries of scholarship do not match his preconceived ideas, I say nothing. It might cause a scene. And causing a scene is the last thing a politically correct minister wants to do.
I swallow hard, and walk away. I do so because I think that it is better to maintain peace than to cause a disturbance. The times that I have tried to stand up have not ended well. My blood does flow hot, and all too often I let passion get the best of me. But the opposite has been that I say nothing. "Keep your mouth shut and be politically correct."
I wish, just once, I could justifiably kick over a few money-changing tables and toss some thieving scoundrels out on their ears.
Sometimes being politically incorrect is exactly what God expects. His house is no less a place of prayer and of healing for the nations today than it was in the last week of Jesus' life.
Maybe someday I will find the balance between personal disgust and zeal for God's house. Maybe someday before I die I will manage to find my teeth.
I can always hope.
A Radical Sermon – Keep Your Condemnations To Yourself – (Matthew 7:1-5)
Dr. Glen Stassen, in his article on the fourteen triads of the Sermon on the Mount, says that, 'The structure of the next triad is straightforward." That is helpful because some of the triads have not been exactly "straightforward," at least to a Western, linear thinker like me. So, having something be a little more obvious is always appreciated.
The "traditional teaching" is found in verse 1, and is very similar to the "You have heard it was said…" statements in chapter 5. Jesus simply repeats a proverbial statement that must have had some currency during his ministry: Do not judge, and you won't be judged. Dr. Stassen views verse 2 as a continuation of the traditional teaching. However, I note that verse 2 could also be the beginning of the "vicious cycle" that virtually always accompanies some self-righteous judgement. If we apply some rigid form of judging, others will apply that same form against us, but usually they will add a little bit to it. We very rarely ever give back exactly what we have been given, we always all a little vinegar along with it. The vicious cycle is then discussed more completely in verses 3 and 4. Invariably what occurs is that we begin to examine others with a microscope when our own sins are so blatant they can be identified a mile away. A mile away, that is, by everyone but us. The illustration Jesus used is meant to be ironic and I believe meant to generate some uncomfortable laughter – at least until the reality of the irony sets it. We are always far more willing to remove specks when the log is protruding from our eye.
What, then, is the "transforming initiative?" It is really quite simple. It is called "repentance." It is removing the very large and blatant sin in our own life so that we can see clearly to analyze the problem in the lives of others. I think something else is taking place here. Jesus is not giving us a blank check to start solving other people's problems just as long as we superficially whitewash over our own. What Jesus is saying is, "If you are going to condemn someone, start with yourself. Examine your relationship with God. How pure are you? What is your attitude? How have you acted? What is your motive? And how have your actions been in line with the thoughts, intentions and motives of God?" When we really and truly place ourselves under the same microscope under which we love to place others something transforming should happen. One, we should see just how far we have fallen from the standard we would like to think we have exceeded, and two, we begin to notice that the "speck" in our brother's eye is not so serious at all. It may need to be removed, yes. But instead of trying to remove it with a rusty pair of vice-grips we use sterilized tweezers and an appropriate amount of anesthesia. True biblical repentance should have a profound and lasting effect upon our willingness to condemn other people.
It has often been noted that the best teacher in any subject is the person who, as a student, had to struggle intensely to overcome any misunderstandings and setbacks. I can relate perfectly. As a flight student I had a bear of a time trying to master flying with reference only to my instruments. I had a mental block, and a pretty sizable physical problem as well. Things just did not seem to want to work for me. With patience and enough time I did earn my instrument rating, went on and earned my Commercial Certificate and both Flight Instructor and Flight Instructor/Instrument ratings. Then the day came for me to start teaching students how to earn their Instrument rating. Because I had made virtually every mistake known to flight students in my own instrument training, I picked up on most of my student's mistakes very quickly. Not only that, but I was able to sympathize with them and give them encouragement. At my first instructor job I was given several of the "problem" students because either (a) I was good enough to get them graduated or (b) I was too sympathetic to turn them down or a mixture of both. But my success rate was pretty good – something that I look back on with a certain amount of pride.
But, the person who is only able to see the faults of others makes for a lousy teacher. That person makes for even a more lousy judge. That person makes for even a more lousy Christian. The life of discipleship is a life that demands first of all that a person is willing and capable of examining him or herself and making the necessary changes before there can be any confrontation of others.
I wonder how the national debate on homosexuality and same-sex marriage would change if the church would simply focus its attention on the sexual dysfunction of its own heterosexual members before it started to "fix" the homosexual population who has no intention of ever being a part of that church to begin with. That is just one example, but the general principle should be clear. The church has a huge blind spot regarding sexual sin, greed, covetousness, racism, compromise with political powers (idolatry) and the environment. How can we justify much of our own myopic rhetoric when we are so complacent toward and complicit with so many behaviors that God specifically condemns in His eternal revelation?
Our world is bent and broken, to be sure. Of that there is no question. But the church shares that same bentness and brokeness. If we do not seek to repent and remove the log in our own eye we will be incapable of helping the world see its own bentness and brokeness. The church's great commission does not begin in Matthew 28:16-20. The church's great commission begins in Psalm 51:1-19 (among many other Psalms of lament). If we do not have a broken heart, no amount of preaching and teaching will ever be acceptable in the Kingdom.
I was having a bad day. Nothing earth shattering, just the usual accumulation of junk and garbage that can turn a sunny day into a cloudy one. I was feeling peevish and just a little out of sorts so I posted something on a social media site that I considered to be witty and expressive of the kind of day I was having.
Then I received the phone call.
A young father had been killed in a car accident. Dozens, if not hundreds, of lives were instantaneously broken. A few will never completely be put back together. Those that are able to move beyond the immediate tragedy will always carry the scar of the gaping wound in their life.
All at once my peevish outlook turned utterly repugnant. I was concerned about a mole hill, perhaps not even a decent sized molehill, and others were facing an emotional earthquake. I removed my trite and now worthless little rant and prayed that no one had seen it, or if they did, that they would not pay any attention to it.
I was visiting with a student who was experiencing what I would consider to be legitimate and worthy feelings of pain related to a personal issue. In the midst of this person's grief they sobbed, "I feel so guilty because I know there are others who have it so much worse." Ouch. Here was a young person desperately attempting to make sense of a situation that was beyond any sense being made of it, and yet they were looking through the lens of seeing the suffering of others.
My self-pity just took another hit. When I make a mistake, I really do it up good.
When we view our own miseries and discomforts it is always beneficial to ask, "From what perspective have we judged this particular pain or sorrow?" More often than not it is strictly selfish and far more often than not, it is fatalistic. Everything revolves around ME and every crisis is equal to or greater than the ending of the world.
Now do not get me wrong here – there are tragic accidents and vicious acts of violence and there are always many, many people who are left to pick of the pieces of their shattered lives. And there are many more situations where a person is attempting to bear up under a load of guilt and pain that far exceeds what they should be asked to carry. Like it or not, accept it or not, there are just evil people in the world and they inflict far more than their share of evil and misery upon others. All too often the innocent pay the greater price for the behavior of the guilty.
I guess I am just rambling here – trying to think in pixels and disjointed sentences about what I have experienced in my own life lately.
I want to tell my young friend, and many others, that it is perfectly okay to scream at God and to cry with the psalmist, "May God, My God, why have you abandoned me?" (Ps. 22:1) It has been the cry of the persecuted faithful for millennia. Jesus cried out in pain; what makes us think we are better than the Son of God? When life truly kicks us and knocks us down we receive no consolation by making believe that the dirt being ground into our flesh is actually quite valuable for growing petunias.
On the other hand, there is an eternity's worth of difference between experiencing a rough day at the office to losing a father, a life's mate, a son, a co-worker and trusted leader. What right do we have to compare a small sprinkle to a tsunami? Our selfishness very quickly devolves from the absurd to the obscene.
It is all about perspective. I want to (no doubt with greater and lesser degrees of success) view things from the perspective of the Kingdom from now on. I reserve the right to cry out in pain and sorrow to my God, but I pray that I will only do so when the "cords of death" encircle me.
I pray for my young friend. I pray for those devastated by the loss, or the impending loss, of a husband, wife, son, daughter, mother, father, dear friend. There are reasons to mourn for 40 days. Do not short-circuit those righteous emotions. God gave them to you. Own them with dignity.
It is all a matter of perspective. May God grant us a Kingdom vision.


text:
Ganjam Recruitment 204 Clerks August 2013 – www.ganjam.nic.in
The Collector and District Magistrate Ganjam has announced / issued the recruitment notification related Ganjam Recruitment 2013 and invites prescribed application format to fill up 204 vacancies of clerks post. Eligible and interested candidates can apply through prescribed application format before 08 August, 2013. More details like age limit, name of posts, educational qualification, pay scale, application fee, selection procedure, recruitment notification, how to apply mention below.
Total Vacancies : 204
Name of Posts : Clerk
Junior Clerk vacancies : 131
Junior Clerk post created against promotional Head clerks 05 vacancies
Junior Clerk post created against promotional post Senior Clerk 68 posts
Age Limit : 18-32 years as on 01/01/2013, age relaxation is as per the government rules.
Application Fee : Rs. 100/- in form of Demand Draft and it should be in favour of Collector, Ganjam Payable State Bank of India, Chatrapur.
Pay Scale : Rs. 5200-20200/- Grade Pay Rs. 1900/-.
Educational Qualification : Candidates have passed the ME examination with Odia as a language subject OR passed the Matriculation or equivalent examination with Odia the medium of exam in non language subject and the conducted by the Education Department.
Selection Process : On basis of performance in written test and practical skill test.
How to Apply : Candidates can apply through via prescribed application format and sent it with necessary attachments to The Collector Ganjam, Chatrapur by registered post or speed post only. APPLICATION FORM FOR THE POST OF JUNIOR CLERK.
Category : – UR/UR(W)/SEBC/SEBC(W)/ST/ST(W)SC/SC(W)/PH/Ex-Service man/sportsman.
Click here http://www.ganjam.nic.in/advertisement/2747_Estt.PDF
Official Website http://www.ganjam.nic.in/

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Kittery Near The Ocean House Rentals(6)
6 Results
Didn't find what you're looking for?
View all 16 Kittery Vacation Rentals or all 1612 Southern Coast of Maine Vacation Rentals
Recent Kittery Reviews
Great location and owners
We rented the farmhouse with friends to stay the weekend for a wedding we attended in Kittery. The farmhouse far exceeded my expectations. It was very cozy, clean, and well kept. It was spacious with plenty of cozy nooks to provide room for everyone. We had 4 cars and there was plenty of parking. The owners are beyond accommodating and are truly wonderful people. My only regret is that we weren't able to stay longer than just the weekend!
Kittery Point - quaint and quiet...one mile from Kittery. The home is clean, spacious and fantastic views from every window out to the harbor and ocean. The water is 30 feet from the patio and accessible via a new dock. We enjoyed our coffee outside every morning and ate most of our meals on the patio as well. WIFI is strong...easy to work. I bought a fan for my room however everyone else was using blankets for sleep at night. The yard is well kept and we played games out there all week. I recommend highly... Lorcan Charleston SC
Perfect Home!
This home is immaculate! It has everything you could want in a quiet setting! The extra large yard was perfect for the kids to play lacrosse or kickball. The rooms were large & we had plenty of room. Dorothy was there to answer any questions we had. This will be our place to stay every time we come to the area!


text:
Boards are established to govern, which is a vital function for the health of their respective organizations. This responsibility is not about "good relations" with the staff or community prestige, but it is essential in providing public accountability. It is the process of challenging the performance of the organization as it relates to its mission. It is about being informed and making policy that assures that resources are focused on the mission. Here are some steps to improve governance: · …
Related Posts
- Columns
- Departments
- Special Features
Issue Archives


text:
The multimedia medical star has written bestselling books on the nonfiction and fiction charts
(4 Photos)
Kimberly Potts
Jan 27, 2013 at 8:08PM
Dr. Gupta, both as a neurosurgeon and in his CNN correspondent work on the frontlines of some of the biggest tragedies of the last decade, has seen a lot of death. Fortunately, he's also seen a lot of cases of miraculous survival. In his second book he profiles patients whose inspiring survival stories were made possible, in part, by dedicated doctors who refused to accept death as an inevitability (even in the most seemingly hopeless cases) and who used the most current medical technologies to save their patients' lives. Among the compelling stories Dr. Gupta shares, while trumpeting the cutting edge medical advances that will continue to combat the fragility of life: a skier who lived after drowning for an hour in an icy lake; a teenager who outlived four large, growing tumors; and a man who was knocked out when he hit his head while hiking and wasn't found for 24 days -- and survived.
Yummy recipes, DIY projects, home decor, fashion and more curated by iVillage staffers.
The very dirty truth about fashion internships... DUN DUN @srslytheshow http://t.co/wfewf
Behind-the-scenes pics from iVillage.


text:
Police are looking for a man who broke into a Torrance business through the ceiling March 17. Photo and video courtesy of the Torrance Police Department.
Police are looking for a man who burglarized a Torrance business March 17 by breaking in through the roof and dropping in from the ceiling.
At about 5:30 a.m. a man broke into Family Acupuncture Clinic on 3525 Lomita Blvd. and stole about $300. Surveillance footage of the incident shows the man drop from the ceiling and exit through another door.
Watch the footage here
The man is described as in his 20s or 30s, about six feet tall with a medium build. He wore a grey shirt, jeans and a blue beanie during the incident, Torrance Sgt. Robert Watt said.
The incident March 17 hasn't been tied to any other incidents in Torrance or surrounding cities, Watt said.
Watt said while seeing a burglary suspect break in through the ceiling isn't unheard of, it is unusual.
"It's pretty distinctive," Watt said.
Anyone who recognizes the man or has information about the incident can contact the Torrance Police Department at 310-328-3456.
December 11, 2014
November 20, 2014
November 13, 2014
October 30, 2014
October 23, 2014
September 25, 2014
Manhattan Beach
Hermosa Beach
Redondo Beach
Palos Verdes
El Segundo


text:
Super Seeds by Kim Lutz is a small, but mighty book. With over 75 recipe using chia, flax, hemp, quinoa and amaranth, this book will inspire you with new ways to try these powerful seeds. All of the recipes are simple, which is not to say boring. They are short and approachable recipes that will expand your horizons. From basics on how to prepare the seeds to enticing recipes like Blueberry Quinoa Salad, Pesto Veggie Burgers, Pineapple Fried Quinoa and Lemon Amaranth Muffins, there is something to get you started and something to move you forward in your exploration. Lutz also provides information on what makes these seeds super and how to grind them into flour and incorporate the flours into your baked goods. We think it's a pretty neat little book.
You can buy a copy from Barnes and Noble for $14.95 or enter to win a copy below. We are giving away a single copy of the book along with a package of our quinoa, hemp seeds, amaranth, chia seeds and flaxseeds. Simply follow the prompts below to enter and we'll pick one lucky winner at random from all who enter by 11:59 pm on 10/23/14.
Hemp Seed Hummus
Makes 1 ½ cups
Hemp seeds do double duty in this recipe.
First, they take the place of the traditional ingredient in hummus, tahini (some people are allergic to sesame seeds). Second, they bring crucial phytonutrients, including zinc and magnesium, to this tasty, satisfyingly textured dip. It makes a great snack, served with crudités such as baby carrots, cucumber slices, celery sticks, and strips of crunchy bell peppers. In addition to making superb sandwiches, hummus is also a salad's best friend. Try adding a healthy dollop on top of your green salad and you will have a flavorful, filling meal.
- 1 ¾ cups cooked Garbanzo Beans (or one 15-ounce can, drained and rinsed)
- 2 tablespoons Hemp Seeds
- 2 tablespoons Lemon Juice
- ¼ teaspoon ground Cumin
- ½ teaspoon Salt
- 3 tablespoons Olive Oil
- 1 clove Garlic, minced
- 2 tablespoons Water
Blend all ingredients together in a food processor or blender until smooth.
Reprinted with permission from Super Seeds © 2014 by Kim Lutz, Sterling Publishing Co. Photography by Bill Milne


text:
Jul. 5 at 4:00pm
In light of revelation, we can certainly conclude that we attain to our deepest understanding of the human situation, and of who we are, as we stand before Christ. This is our real situation; thus, if we are to approach other human beings in truth, we must "arc" through Christ to get to them. We never only stand before another in a direct one-on-one way; Christ always stands with us, before us, in us, and between us.
And how do we stand with Christ? We eat with Him (and of Him) as his friends at the Last Supper (with the hope of the heavenly banquet/wedding feast) and then we stand before Him (dying on the Cross) as His betrayers, mocking and torturing Him. And he forgives us. This is the deepest truth about us and only through this awareness should we approach others.
The holy sacrifice of the Mass, the Eucharistic banquet, makes present again to us every day this deepest level of our being. Thus, we can find some clues as to our true state and true call in relation to others in the great prayers before and after Mass tracing back to Sts. Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, and Bonaventure.
For example, St. Augustine reminds us of the absolutely dire straights we are really in--due to our own sinfulness (and only in light of this knowledge should we look at others' sins):
Before Thy eyes, O Lord, we bring our offences, and we compare them with the stripes we have received. If we consider the evil we have wrought, what we suffer is little, what we deserve is great. What we have committed is very grave, what we have suffered is very slight. We feel the punishment of sin, yet withdraw not from the obstinacy of sinning. Under Thy lash our inconstancy is visited, but our sinfulness is not changed. Our suffering soul is tormented, but our neck is not bent. Our life groans in sorrow, yet mends not in deed. If Thou spare us, we correct not our ways; if Thou punish we cannot endure it. In time of correction we confess our wrong-doing; after Thy visitation we forget that we have wept. If Thou stretchest forth Thy hand we promise amendment; if Thou withholdest the sword we keep not our promise. If Thou strikest we cry out for mercy; if Thou sparest we again provoke Thee to strike. Here we are before Thee, O Lord, shameless criminals; we know that unless Thou pardon we shall deservedly perish. Grant then, O almighty Father, without our deserving it, the pardon we ask for; Thou Who madest out of nothing those who ask Thee. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. *Deal not with us, O Lord, according to our sins. *Neither requite us according to our iniquities.
It is out of this consciousness of our own state before the Divine Majesty, in light of what we have done to His Son (and continue to do each day), that we must approach others. I think this is especially important in dealing with those who have sinned against us, offended or betrayed us. We must pray for mercy for them as we constantly must do for ourselves—"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." When we ourselves deserve condemnation, we can hardly put our main emphasis on justice rather than mercy. So St. Thomas, in his meditation after communion, says, "I pray that this holy Communion be not to me a condemnation unto punishment, but a saving plea unto forgiveness." He also prays in his meditation before Mass:
Almighty and eternal God, behold, I approach the Sacrament of Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. I approach as one who is sick to the physician of life, as one unclean to the fountain of mercy, as one blind to the light of eternal brightness, as one poor and needy to the Lord of heaven and earth. Therefore I beseech Thee, of thine infinite goodness, to heal my sickness, to wash away my filth, to enlighten my blindness, to enrich my poverty, and to clothe my nakedness, that I may receive the Bread of angels, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, with such reverence and humility, with such contrition and devotion, with such purity and faith, with such purpose and intention, as may be conducive to the salvation of my soul….
Going through Christ to the other means, then, approaching every other person—no matter what they have done to us—with an extension of this attitude toward God: reverence and humility, contrition and devotion on our part. This may be extraordinary to the point where it can scarcely be believed, yet it is exemplified in the lives of the saints. So again, St. Ambrose, in his meditation before Mass, says:
O loving Lord Jesus Christ, I a sinner, presuming not on my own merits, but trusting in Thy mercy and goodness, with fear and trembling approach the table of Thy most sacred banquet. For I have defiled both my heart and body with many sins, and have not kept a strict guard over my mind and my tongue. Wherefore, O gracious God, O awful Majesty, I, a wretched creature, entangled in difficulties, have recourse to Thee the fount of mercy; to Thee do I fly that I may be healed, and take refuge under Thy protection, and I ardently desire to have Him as my Saviour, whom I am unable to withstand as my Judge. To Thee, O Lord, I show my wounds, to Thee I lay bare my shame. I know that my sins are many and great, on account of which I am filled with fear. But I trust in Thy mercy, of which there is no end…. (H)ave mercy on me, who am full of misery and sin, Thou who wilt never cease to let flow the fountain of mercy…. I am grieved because I have sinned, I desire to make amends for what I have done….
It is in light of this my true state before God, i.e., absolutely in need of mercy and with a deep desire to make amends for my own sins in justice, that I must accept and offer back up to God in reparation all the crosses that are sent to me in life—including betrayal and harm from others, even friends, family, loved ones, etc. Not that those who do harm don't deserve punishment, but it is not my place as an individual (and fellow sinner) to judge and to punish. I am called to extend the same mercy, love, and forgiveness that God has extended to me. Again, this is not to say that no punishment is due for evil (indeed we see clearly that it is due in our own case, for which we should tremble), but I am called to treat others mercifully as I have been treated. So Matthew, 18: 32-35:
Then his lord called him and said to him: Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all the debt because thou besoughtest me. Shouldst not thou then have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had compassion on thee? And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt. So also shall my heavenly father do to you, if you forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.
Or again Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 28:1-10:
He that seeketh to revenge himself, shall find vengeance from the Lord, and he will surely keep his sins in remembrance. Forgive thy neighbor if he hath hurt thee: and then shall thy sins be forgiven thee when thou prayest. Man to man reserveth anger, and doth he seek remedy of God? He hath no mercy on a man like himself, and doth he entreat for his own sins? He that is but flesh, nourisheth anger, and doth he ask forgiveness of God? Who shall obtain pardon for his sins? Remember the last things, and let thy enmity cease: for corruption and death hang over in his commandments. Remember the fear of God, and be not angry with thy neighbor. Refrain from strife, and thou shalt diminish thy sins.
But if we do give to others what God has given to us, His heart-felt mercy and forgiveness, His longing for reconciliation and communion in love re-established ("Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Desire of the Everlasting Hills, have mercy on us"), then the free and undeserved gift of eternal joy in loving communion with God and others is given.
So with St. Bonaventure's prayer after communion:
Pierce, O most sweet Lord Jesus, my inmost soul with the most joyous and healthful wound of Thy love, with true, serene, and most holy apostolic charity…. (L)et my heart ever hunger after and feed upon Thee, upon whom the angels desire to look, and may my inmost soul be filled with the sweetness of Thy savour…. (M)ayest thou alone be ever my hope, my entire assurance, my riches, my delight, my pleasure, my joy, my rest and tranquility, my peace, my sweetness, my fragrance, my sweet savour, my food, my refreshment, my refuge, my help, my wisdom, my portion, my possession, and my treasure, in whom may my mind and my heart be fixed and firm and rooted immovably henceforth and forever. Amen.
But if our hearts are filled with anger and resentment at what others have done to us, there will be no room for the joy and peace described above. And if we want this joy and peace for ourselves, we must forgive from our hearts those who have hurt or betrayed us and pray with a deep longing that they join us in the Heart of Christ, both now and in eternity.
So, while it is quite true that there are false notions of forgiveness and neurotic forms of "reconciliation" abroad among Christians (and others), what remains even after these have been overcome is the danger of hard-heartedness. "I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh." (Ezechiel 11:19)
I must look at other sinners with the clear knowledge that I am capable of every sin ever committed, including this heinous one right here before me that I am so disgusted with. Only God's providence, His gifts, and His grace have held me back. Lord, have mercy on us all!
For instance, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago first describes the evil of the "torturer-executioners" who beat confessions out of innocent prisoners as their daily job (Ch. 4):
There is one thing, however, which remains with us all as an accurate generalized recollection: foul rot—a space totally infected with putrefaction. And even when, decades later, we are long past fits of anger or outrage, in our own quieted hearts we retain this firm impression of low, malicious, impious, and, possibly, muddled people.
Then, he throws out an amazing challenge:
And just so we don't go around flaunting too proudly the white mantle of the just, let everyone ask himself: "If my life had turned out differently, might I myself not have become just such an executioner?"
It is a dreadful question if one really answers it honestly.
He goes on to share how close he came to just such a way of life. And this is who we are, this is what we have to admit, as we stand before Christ and through Him relate to others.
I also know that, by my sins (of thought, word, deed, and omission), I have linked hands in the mob that preferred Barabbas to Jesus, that I have also cheered and shouted out with every murderer, torturer, betrayer, molester, liar, oppressor, etc., "Crucify him!"--so I share in their guilt, just as I would share in the evil of all that went on inside if I worked in an abortion clinic or a Nazi extermination camp. Lord have mercy on us all!
John Henry Cardinal Newman describes our real state, united in sin against Him while being saved by Him, in his sermon "The Mental Sufferings of Our Lord in His Passion," describing the agony in the garden:
Thy dearest are there, Thy saints and Thy chosen are upon Thee; Thy three Apostles, Peter, James, and John; but not as comforters, but as accusers, like the friends of Job, "sprinkling dust towards heaven," and heaping curses on Thy head. All are there but one; one only is not there, one only; for she who had no part in sin, she only could console Thee, and therefore she is not nigh. She will be near Thee on the Cross, she is separated from Thee in the garden.... None was equal to the weight but God; sometimes before Thy saints Thou hast brought the image of a single sin, as it appears in the light of Thy countenance, or of venial sins, not mortal; and they have told us that the sight did all but kill them, nay, would have killed them, had it not been instantly withdrawn. The Mother of God, for all her sanctity, nay by reason of it, could not have borne even one brood of that innumerable progeny of Satan which now compasses Thee about. It is the long history of a world, and God alone can bear the load of it. Hopes blighted, vows broken, lights quenched, warnings scorned, opportunities lost; the innocent betrayed, the young hardened, the penitent relapsing, the just overcome, the aged failing; the sophistry of misbelief, the wilfulness of passion, the obduracy of pride, the tyranny of habit, the canker of remorse, the wasting fever of care, the anguish of shame, the pining of disappointment, the sickness of despair; such cruel, such pitiable spectacles, such heartrending, revolting, detestable, maddening scenes; nay, the haggard faces, the convulsed lips, the flushed cheek, the dark brow of the willing slaves of evil, they are all before Him now; they are upon Him and in Him. They are with Him instead of that ineffable peace which has inhabited His soul since the moment of His conception. They are upon Him, they are all but His own; He cries to His Father as if He were the criminal, not the victim; His agony takes the form of guilt and compunction. He is doing penance, He is making confession, He is exercising contrition, with a reality and a virtue infinitely greater than that of all saints and penitents together; for He is the One Victim for us all, the sole Satisfaction, the real Penitent, all but the real sinner.
In this awareness of what we have done to Him, and what He has done for us, must we approach those who have offended us. Our goal should be to achieve what St. Paul requires of us in Romans 12:14-21:
Bless them that persecute you: bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep. Being of one mind one towards another. Not minding high things, but consenting to the humble. Be not wise in your own conceits. To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.
We can hardly be demanding justice for others while screaming for mercy ourselves.
Michael, you make a passionate case against claims that no one here is making, as if to overcome attitudes and dispositions that no one here has, or defends.
That, in itself, I submit, once again suggests a tendency in the direction of the false notion of forgiveness I oppose.
The false notion of forgiveness I have in mind treats concern for justice as somehow morally suspect, and essentially opposed to forgivness, when in truth, they are inseparably linked.
Jules recently reminded me that Newman said that attaining any one of the virtues would be an easy matter if we didn't have to be concerned with also attaining the others.
My fuller thoughts are coming soon. I'm sorry I'm so slow to get them out!
#1 - Jul. 6 at 10:37am | quote
Meanwhile, I love this quote from Roger Scruton, which shows how well a concern for justice when we have been wronged (I mean a real concern for justice, and not resentment or vindictiveness masquerading as justice) has everything to do with taking others seriously as persons, with desiring their good, and desiring a restoration of communion with them:
'You promised,' you say, and your words are addressed to that very centre of being where his 'I' resides...You are expecting a response from that very I – a response from the centre of freedom where he resides, one self-conscious subject among others. You expect him, in other words, to take responsibility for what he did, to say 'I am sorry', and maybe to show how he is going to atone for his fault, to make amends, and in this way re-establish your relations in such a way that you will forgive him. There is a process here, and we are all familiar with it. And it is a process in which one 'I' faces another, both of them exercising their freedom, taking responsibility for their choices, and in general acting as the sovereign of the human animal.
#2 - Jul. 6 at 10:44am | quote
The dyfunctional notion of forgiveness sees something wrong, something self-righteous in expecting another person to take responsiblity for what he freely did—as if it would be more Christian to say, "He couldn't help it." or "It doesn't matter; it's okay that he broke his promise."
But that expectation, in itself, has nothing to do with self-righteousness or any thought of moral superiority. It is perfectly compatible with a deep awareness of and contrition for my own moral failings, and with a generous interior act of forgivess.
#3 - Jul. 6 at 11:03am | quote
As I've followed this conversation, my sense has been that Michael (and I don't mean to speak for him - it's just my impression) is arguing for forgiveness from the one who has been wronged, regardless of whether the one who is wrong takes responsibility for what he or she freely did. It seems like forgiveness should be the Christian's anterior habit of heart, for lack of a better phrase. I don't think the focus has been on excusing the one who is wrong of such a responsibility or not, but rather on the fact that forgiveness should still be granted regardless of whether or not "justice" has been achieved in a given situation. Our fundamental concern ought to be mercy, forgiveness - not in opposition to justice, though also not as a respoonse to be offered only on the condition that there is also justice.
I'd add that while it would be incorrect objectively, abstractly, to conceive of the concern for justice as somehow morally suspect (in light of the need to also forgive), subjectively, personally, if we are honest, I think there is good reason to be cautious of our own desires and interest in "justice."
#4 - Jul. 6 at 1:04pm | quote
Thanks, Patrick. You said it clearly and simply, compared to my somewhat long-winded "passionate case."
I understand the importance of the quote from Roger Scruton on seriously addressing one another as persons with freedom (see my earlier post, "Forgiveness: What Completes it? What cripples it?"), but I still disagree with the implication in his phrase "and in this way re-establish your relations in such a way that you will forgive him." My forgiveness does not have to be conditional on his attitudes, only the completed social/interpersonal act of forgiveness is so dependent. And on that score, I should be filled with longing for reconciliation and watching out for a chance of achieving it. Even if the other person is still somewhat confused, in denial, superficial, or ignorant about their fault, but tries to apologize and reestablish communion, I should leap at such a chance and at least begin the process. Caritas urget nos.
#5 - Jul. 6 at 1:55pm | quote
In terms of the emphasis on justice, it's proper level or place also depends upon my status or position vis-a-vis the other. So, for instance, the Little Flower writes, in Counsels and Reminiscences:
To want to persuade our Sisters that they are in the wrong, even when it is perfectly true, is hardly fair, as we are not responsible for their guidance. We must not be Justices of the peace but only angels of peace.
So do we want the Hatfields and the McCoys? Or do we want the Little Flower?
#6 - Jul. 6 at 1:58pm | quote
From: No Peace Without Justice - No Justice Without Forgiveness
But forgiveness is the opposite of resentment and revenge, not of justice. In fact, true peace is "the work of justice" (Is 32:17). As the Second Vatican Council put it, peace is "the fruit of that right ordering of things with which the divine founder has invested human society and which must be actualized by man thirsting for an ever more perfect reign of justice" (Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 78). For more than fifteen hundred years, the Catholic Church has repeated the teaching of Saint Augustine of Hippo on this point. He reminds us that the peace which can and must be built in this world is the peace of right order—tranquillitas ordinis, the tranquillity of order (cf. De Civitate Dei, 19,13).
#7 - Jul. 6 at 2:27pm | quote
True peace therefore is the fruit of justice, that moral virtue and legal guarantee which ensures full respect for rights and responsibilities, and the just distribution of benefits and burdens. But because human justice is always fragile and imperfect, subject as it is to the limitations and egoism of individuals and groups, it must include and, as it were, be completed by the forgiveness which heals and rebuilds troubled human relations from their foundations. This is true in circumstances great and small, at the personal level or on a wider, even international scale. Forgiveness is in no way opposed to justice, as if to forgive meant to overlook the need to right the wrong done. It is rather the fullness of justice, leading to that tranquillity of order which is much more than a fragile and temporary cessation of hostilities, involving as it does the deepest healing of the wounds which fester in human hearts. Justice and forgiveness are both essential to such healing.
#8 - Jul. 6 at 2:27pm | quote
Michael Healy, Jul. 6 at 12:55pm
...I still disagree with the implication in his phrase "and in this way re-establish your relations in such a way that you will forgive him." My forgiveness does not have to be conditional on his attitudes, only the completed social/interpersonal act of forgiveness is so dependent.
But that's clearly what Scruton means. He is speaking of the interpersonal relationship, the social act.
And, consider. If my friend denies that he has done me wrong, then for me to say, "I forgive you" to him could tend not toward reconciliation, but a deeper alienation.
Similarly, I would be offended if someone who accuses me of wrong that I have not done, then says, "But, don't worry, I forgive you."
Persons relate to each other in and through truth. The dysfunctional notion of forgiveness wants the question of truth to be set aside in the name of reconciliation. Whether there was an objective offense doesn't matter. Whether it's acknoweldged and repented of doesn't matter. Who's at fault doesn't matter. All that matters is that we (by an act of will) "forgive each other" and move on.
This is not real forgiveness at all.
#9 - Jul. 6 at 2:55pm | quote
Patrick Dunn, Jul. 6 at 12:04pm
...while it would be incorrect objectively, abstractly, to conceive of the concern for justice as somehow morally suspect (in light of the need to also forgive), subjectively, personally, if we are honest, I think there is good reason to be cautious of our own desires and interest in "justice."
We have good reason to be cautious about our own moral self-evaluation whatever values are at stake.
We have to be on guard lest our stand for justice become infected with pride or self-righteousness.
Similiarly, we have to be on guard that the forgiving attitude we cultivate in ourselves is the true one, and not a cheap substitute.
We also have to be on guard against imputing unforgiveness to others who may, in fact, not be unforgiving at all.
#10 - Jul. 6 at 3:02pm | quote
Katie van Schaijik, Jul. 6 at 2:02pm
We have good reason to be cautious about our own moral self-evaluation whatever values are at stake.
No doubt. I just think the greater temptation to self-deception for most of us lies in tending towards zeal for justice rather than zeal for mercy. If I'm going to miss the mark, I suppose I'd rather be too forgiving than too just. "...the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you" (Mt 7:2).
Jesus has revealed Himself as "Divine Mercy" - at least for our own era, I think this deserves our special devotion and imitation.
"Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to My mercy" (Diary, 300).
It was the same with another spiritual giant of our time, St. Therese, who when speaking with Sr. Marie Febronia about her preoccupation with God's Justice (contrary to Therese's view that a soul need not go to Purgatory), said: "My sister, if you look for the justice of God you will get it. The soul will receive from God exactly what she desires." If that is how it 'works' between a soul and God, then so also between persons, I'd think.
#11 - Jul. 6 at 3:29pm | quote
Following this discussion with interest.
This seems relevant:
Our prejudices about mercy are mostly the result of appraising them only from the outside. At times it happens that by following this method of evaluation we see in mercy above all a relationship of inequality between the one offering it and the one receiving it. And, in consequence, we are quick to deduce that mercy belittles the receiver, that it offends the dignity of man. The parable of the prodigal son shows that the reality is different: the relationship of mercy is based on the common experience of that good which is man, on the common experience of the dignity that is proper to him. This common experience makes the prodigal son begin to see himself and his actions in their full truth (this vision in truth is a genuine form of humility); on the other hand, for this very reason he becomes a particular good for his father: the father sees so clearly the good which has been achieved thanks to a mysterious radiation of truth and love, that he seems to forget all the evil which the son had committed. - Dives in Misericordia
#12 - Jul. 6 at 6:27pm | quote
Patrick Dunn, Jul. 6 at 2:29pm
I just think the greater temptation to self-deception for most of us lies in tending towards zeal for justice rather than zeal for mercy.
1. Kierkegaard has much to say about our tendency to false contrition and cheap repentance. Our apology to another is easily motivated by an iritation with the discomfort of guilt and estrangement, rather than by true contrition. We easily fancy that we've done our part, now it's up to the one we offended to forgive us.
The Catholic psychogist, Dr. Peter Damgaard-Hansen, says a sure sign of false repentance is that the offender gets irritated with the one he's offended, for not forgiving him. He's done his part, now the problem's hers.
2. Co-dependent types are notoriously apt to "forgive" wrong-doing where they ought to be demanding justice.
3. The theory I'm talking about is often focused on others, and what we perceive to be their responsibility to forgive. We show "mercy" toward the offender in exactly the way the federal government displays generosity toward the poor--using other people's money.
I think our relativistic society is much more inclined toward "unprincipled forgiveness" than it is toward excessive zeal for justice.
#13 - Jul. 6 at 7:24pm | quote
Kate, thanks for the great passage! I like this part especially:
the prodigal son begin to see himself and his actions in their full truth (this vision in truth is a genuine form of humility); on the other hand, for this very reason he becomes a particular good for his father: the father sees so clearly the good which has been achieved thanks to a mysterious radiation of truth and love, that he seems to forget all the evil which the son had committed.
I note the repeated focus on truth. And I note that the it was the son's recognition of the truth that partly enabled the father's forgiveness. The son's "achievement" of truth and humility, in a way, "justified" the generous act of forgiveness.
"Unprincipled forgiveness" deliberately sets aside the question of truth.
#14 - Jul. 6 at 7:38pm | quote
Michael Healy, Jul. 6 at 12:58pm
So do we want the Hatfields and the McCoys? Or do we want the Little Flower?
Completely false alternative.
#15 - Jul. 7 at 9:36am | quote
For the second time (Comment #37 in the "Unprincipled Forgiveness" thread and #1 in this thread), it has been surmised that I have fallen—perhaps unknowingly—into support for sham or "unprincipled" pressure to forgive. This despite the fact that, while agreeing that there is such a thing and that it's wrong and dangerous, I have "passionately" tried to distinguish neurotic "forgiveness" from supernaturally based, saintly forgiveness. In my contributions, I have done nothing but point to the examples of Christ and the saints, and the prayers and writings of the saints. Yet twice I am accused of supporting neurosis. Why?
Now the first comment (#7) I wrote on "Unprincipled Forgiveness" started with "All abstract theory aside" and pointed to the living examples of Christ and the saints. This "abstract theory" interpretation was objected to. But I think it is central. It is one thing to acknowledge supernatural, radical Christian forgiveness theoretically, but quite a new step when this living ideal is pressed forward as a concrete existential burden on the shoulders of each of us to imitate. One can resist the latter while agreeing with the former.
#16 - Jul. 7 at 8:57pm | quote
Comment #3 states:
The dyfunctional notion of forgiveness sees something wrong, something self-righteous in expecting another person to take responsiblity for what he freely did—as if it would be more Christian to say, "He couldn't help it." or "It doesn't matter; it's okay that he broke his promise."
Two comments: 1) I should hope the other will take responsibility, but not necessarily expect it—again, remembering first myself and my own weakness, dishonesty, and traitorousness. 2) A false alternative is offered here (while I'm not so sure that the Hatfields vs McCoys compared to The Little Flower is ultimately a false alternative). The false alternative is: either a) "expecting another person to take responsibility for what he freely did" or b) making excuses for him: "He couldn't help it," or "It doesn't matter; it's okay…." There can also be a deep understanding of another's weakness—in light of one's own—and extending the hand of forgiveness, love, and reconciliation even when the other doesn't deserve it—because Christ has done so with me. The Little Flower says:
Joy to think that God is just, that is to say, that He takes our weakness into consideration, that he thoroughly knows the frailty of our nature.
#17 - Jul. 7 at 9:03pm | quote
Comment #9:
I would be offended if someone who accuses me of wrong that I have not done, then says, "But, don't worry, I forgive you."
Persons relate to each other through truth.
But one must look at inner motives not just objective actions and reactions. To neurotically succumb to pressure to reunion by falsely accepting a charge against one, "knuckling under" to pressure, would be a terrible weakness--not a foundation on which to build a genuine relationship.
But, as stated above, it is never one-on-one, rather always Christ with us, before us, in us, and between us. So how have the saints reacted here? To quote the Cure of Ars (from his Catechism on Pride) referring to another saint:
St. Aloysius Gonzaga, when he was a student, if found fault with on any occasion, never tried to excuse himself. If he was wrong, he was wrong; if he was right, he would say to himself: I have often been wrong before.
People relate to each other primarily through love, i.e., through Christ. The truth about each of us as we stand before him must be the context of our responses.
#18 - Jul. 7 at 9:09pm | quote
More from the Cure of Ars, relevant to various earlier comments:
Love of our neighbor consists of three things: To desire the greater good of everyone; to do what good we can when we can; to bear, excuse and hide others' faults. (Sermon on Love for One's Neighbor)
The saints had no hatred, no bitterness; they forgive everything and think they deserve much more for their offenses against God. (Sermon on Forgiveness)
One sin cannot excuse another sin. (On Anger)
God makes greater speed to pardon a penitent sinner than a mother to snatch her child out of the fire. (Catechetical Illustration from Nature)
#19 - Jul. 7 at 9:11pm | quote
Also, St. Thomas More—and very few were as unjustly treated as he was (from his prayer in the Tower of London as he awaited an unjust death after the complete ruin of his earthly life and career):
Give me thy grace, good Lord…
To know mine own vility and wretchedness;
To humble and meeken myself under the mighty hand of God;...
To bear the cross with Christ;…
To pray for pardon before the judge come;
To think my most enemies my best friends;
For the brethren of Joseph could never have done him so much good with their love and favor as they did him with their malice and hatred.
These minds are more to be desired of every man….
I'm afraid an emphasis on justice will make me grim; it is this open-hearted joy in suffering (even injustice) because it imitates Christ, because it is grounded in love, which liberates.
Again, the little Flower:
It is confidence, and confidence alone, that must lead us to Love…Does not fear lead us rather to think of the rigid justice by which sinners are warned? But that is not the justice that Jesus will show to those who love Him.
#20 - Jul. 7 at 9:19pm | quote
Maybe an analogy will serve to explain why your comments, taken together, make me suspect you of tending in the direction of (not formally endorsing!) the "unprincipled forgiveness" I am speaking of.
Say you start a discussion about "a false notion of altruism", according to which any interest in our own welfare is identifed as selfishness. In truth, (you say) concern for our own welfare belongs to our duty as Christians.
Imagine I reply by amassing instances of saints, such as Louis de Montfort, who express violent contempt for themselves, and press on your attention the importance of living for others, not for self.
"But," you say in reply, "I don't deny that we're called to give ourselves in love, or that there is such a thing as true altruism. I only say that there's a false notion out there that is misleading many."
"Of course there are false notions out there," I reply. "But what I don't understand is why you won't admit that we are called to make a radical gift of ourselves for others--even if it means losing all our earthly goods and joyfully embracing persecutions of all kinds. Think of St. Francis!"
What would you say?
#21 - Jul. 7 at 9:39pm | quote
Here's another reason.
Where I say "concern for justice", you seem to read, "hard-heartedness," "self-righteousness", "stinginess", "rigidity", "shunning," "refusal to forgive", etc.
Why is that?
Another point:
You are contrasting neurotic forgiveness with true forgivenes. Well and good. But what I had posted about was a contrast between a true account of forgiveness, i.e. one that includes a concern for justice, and a false account that doesn't.
I said the false account is operative and doing harm in Christian circles these. You reply by saying we are called to true forgiveness. And by suggesting all over the place that a concern for justice is a morally dubious proposition.
It makes me wonder.
#22 - Jul. 7 at 9:53pm | quote
See new post on "Examples of 'False' Charity" where I express more agreement with you. But I'm afraid that I think my previous posts and comments already address your questions and I don't want to start repeating myself.
As to the altruism question and the radical self-abnegation statements of the saints, I think both have to be seen in light of the fact, again, that it is never me and others, but Christ, me, and others. As I stand before Christ in my sin, with what I have done to Him and to myself, the more negative statements of the saints about self must be understood.
It's not that legitimate self-love (affirmed by St. Thomas and the great tradition, as well as by Von Hildebrand, Wojtyla, even Kierkegaard) is ever denied by the saints. It's just that they leave their "own good" to Christ and realize they never have the worry about it again as long as they follow Him. So it is not contradicted but rather absorbed into the love of God, much like the role of shame (to defend a high good) is no longer needed after Christian marriage and is absorbed into conjugal love.
#23 - Jul. 7 at 11:06pm | quote
So, the Little Flower says:
On the day of my conversion Charity entered into my heart and with it a yearning to forget self always; thenceforward I was happy.
So one's own happiness is not rejected or denied, it's just no longer a theme that needs to be addressed.
As to the questions about the concern for justice, I think Patrick's comment (#4 above) says it well. Again, the key is realizing our true state at the foot of the cross; this has to modify all concern for justice--especially in situations where we ourselves are the offended one.
#24 - Jul. 7 at 11:20pm | quote
I think our relativistic society is much more inclined toward "unprincipled forgiveness" than it is toward excessive zeal for justice.
In three fairly recent, prominent, public examples of wrong doing - the situation with Osama bin Laden and the collective post-9/11 reaction, the situation with Catholic clergy and sexual abuse, and the situation with Jerry Sandusky - it seems to me that, in each, most of us were concerned that the offenders were brought to justice. I saw comparatively little concern that we were being merciful with them and/or trying to understand them as human beings with their own personal 'story', part of which may well have contributed to some of the poor decisions they made, whatever their culpability may be otherwise. I believe few of us are willing to admit that, though we may never commit the same horrific acts that those men may have, we are sinners like them and "but for the grace of God, go we." But most of us going around effectively bracketing off those 'bad men' who deserve justice from those of us who could never quite be so bad. Yet the Gospel draws our attention into our hearts where evil thoughts and desires dwell, even if we never carry them out.
#25 - Jul. 9 at 9:39am | quote


text:
Restaurants in Madison + The Central Plains
Whether it's a classic culinary temple or a local haunt, these Madison + The Central Plains restaurants are destinations in and of themselves. Read on to discover Travel + Leisure's picks for the best Madison + The Central Plains restaurants and dining experiences. Browse our travel guides for insider information on food trucks, bakeries, cafés, coffeehouses, farm-to-table restaurants, diners, trattorias, bistros, pizzerias, ice cream parlors, tapas bars, noodle houses, sushi counters, fine dining establishments, and more.
Our global network of editors and writers selects the best restaurants in Madison + The Central Plains to help travelers soak up the local scene and find authentic dishes. Whether highlighting an insider hot spot, a celebrity chef's newest restaurant, a hip coffeehouse, or the best place for cheap eats, Travel + Leisure takes you there, serving up the best Madison + The Central Plains restaurant listings. Below find T+L's top picks for where to eat in Madison + The Central Plains.
Babcock Hall Dairy StorePRICE RANGE:
Baumgartner's Cheese Store & TavernPRICE RANGE:Wisconsin's oldest cheese store. Pair your favorite fromage with a local brew in the tavern. More
ChautaraPRICE RANGE:
CocoliquotFrench bistro and chocolate haven. More
Ella's Deli & Ice Cream ParlorPRICE RANGE:Stop at this old-fashioned shop, where families share overstuffed Reubens, fried pickles, and hot-fudge sundaes with grilled pound cake. More
Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine BarPRICE RANGE:Upscale chophouse More
Harvest, MadisonPRICE RANGE:
Himal ChuliPRICE RANGE:
House of Embers GrillePRICE RANGE:Come in for a hearty family-friendly meal like the famed hickory-smoked ribs and chocolate–peanut butter mousse. More
Hungry House CaféPRICE RANGE:
Marigold Kitchen, MadisonPRICE RANGE:
Mexicali RosePRICE RANGE:The perfect spot for authentic Mexican cuisine and drinks overlooking the Wisconsin River. The Hurricane Rosa, a fruity, red rum punch, is the hous... More
Osteria PapaveroPRICE RANGE:The small-plate restaurant has great service, a proper wine program, and an impressive amaro selection. More
Restaurant MagnusLatin-flavored champion of local farmers. More
Explore restaurants in Wisconsin for more options.


text:
Cut the Rope Sequel – Experiments Out Now
If you've never heard of Cut the Rope, where have you been? It is a physics game which got it's place in fame for knocking Rovio's Angry Birds off the top spot on iOS and quickly made it's way to Android earlier this year for domination.
Zeptolab, the company behind the new franchise have just released the second instalment called "Cut the Rope: Experiments" and features more rope cutting goodness along with some physics based puzzling.
It's now available on the App Store for 69p, but atm isn't working with iOS 5 Beta 4.
No sign on Android yet, which is a strange tactic indeed considering it's larger market share, but some software houses are still old school I suppose.
Buy Cut the Rope: Experiments - itunes