Of Atlas and Pastoral Sanity

I believe that in order to do truly great things we need time, and time is a commodity that America does not value.  A friend of mine posted a talk by Walter Brueggemann in which he said that the pastor has gotten side-tracked by other duties outside of the traditional rabbinic duties that pastors were supposed to possess.  I shall ignore the shortcomings of that analysis and state that too often the pastor has is believed to be the one person and only person who is to change the church.  The hierarchy (i.e. synods, District Super Attendants, or other high-muckity-mucks) are not believed to be involved in the dynamic changes of parish life and the laity are viewed as being ill-equipped.  Thus the onus and burden for the life of the church too often falls on the pastor.  I remember a lay person giving a talk at a chapel service.  He talked about how pastors needed to get their finances in order.  He said, "If you can't afford seminary, maybe that is a sign you shouldn't go or that you should wait."  I will not go into the segue of how that places mammon above God; but I will say that he is quite correct that pastors should look at their finances and stewardship.  That being said, one can be completely right but totally wrong by not attacking the whole issue.  My question is this, "Do we expect pastors to be some sort of shaman or pontifex maximus with the backs of Atlas who shoulder the brunt of the entire church expectant or do we look at the eschatological reality of the church as the culture into which we all participate?"  Pastors do and should have a lot of responsibility.  If I have let people down, I have let my God down; I deserve to experience the same repercussions and long to experience the same grace as my office dictates.  God save the American church.

Charlatans amongst the argument.

When I was young, the Representative from our district came and visited our school.  I can remember thinking how cool it was to have a politician come and visit.  You see, I had been raised in a family that respected civil authorities.  Luther and the other Wittenberg reformers had been very much of the opinion that the civil authorities are to be given respect as any person in any job should have respect.  Concurrently, my father had been a person very much involved in politics from a young age.  He had grown up reading biographies and even, from time to time, tried his hand at it.  So, I was very happy to report what had happened at school.  My father held his council.  Good dads know when that opinions spouted to children have a nasty habit of growing up ill-formed in the child.

It has been years since then.  Rob Portman has moved on to do bigger and grander things.  And recently, in an article in the Dispatch, he threw his lot in with the pro-gay-marriage group.  While I am for all Americans to be permitted to marry, I have found this groups tactics to be questionable.  Obviously emotions move people quicker than logic; but we have to ask what the fall-out from this whole enterprise will be?

First, let me clear up my view on homosexuality.  My religious stance should not matter, but nor should it be discounted.  I believe, like the rest of orthodox Christianity, that homosexuality is a sin.  That is to say it creates disunity with God and God's creation.  If you do not believe in God or do not hold to the Christian view of creation, that is your prerogative.  I also believe in grace.  I believe grace is far more convicting than the law.  If we were to ban homosexual marriages, how many other things would we have to ban?  Would we ban lying?  Covetousness?  Adultery?  How about taking the Lord's name in vain?  In addition, we would have to render null and void all the marriages outside the Christian faith.  Legalism doesn't work.  God knows this.  That is why he sent his son.  Of course the law hasn't been done away with; but neither are we saved by it.  We enter into discipleship under the shadow of the cross and the darkened empty tomb, not legalistic precepts.

Sadly this is a battle that is being fought by legalistic pharisees on both extremes.  Both see the laws of nature being the paramount of human salvation or at least justification; rather than seeing a life relationally transformed through grace by faith.  I do not have faith in my biology.  Eventually telomeres will stop splitting and my heart will run down.  My body, mind, and soul seek my ruin.  Whatever.  That's life.

Rather, Christians should seek to make sure no one is persecuted because of their beliefs.  I have always thought of homosexuals as having a different worldview than the Christian.  That person has a different telos and has seen fit to bind himself or herself to different codes than the Christian.  To me a homosexual deserves the same tolerance and respect as a Buddhist, Atheist, Jew, Muslim, or countless other worldview participant.  Christianity was not born in a Christian nation, it was born in a foreign land.  It was born in the land of its sojourn.  As such we must be accepting to others who do not share our views.  Perhaps they will become Christian in the end, but that is not ours to determine.  That is a work of the Spirit.  We are only His humble servants.

Which brings me back to Rob Portman and other charlatans.  Perhaps a tragedy as great as the denial of civil rights to homosexuals (for instance not being able to receive pay upon the death of a partner or visitation rights at a hospital), has been the rise of the gay-rights' charlatans.  They range from corporations looking for an easy cause to gain consumers to politicians looking for votes to religious organizations who see a way to maintain their standing in a changing country.  Would these groups actually back the homosexual movement if it were not in vogue?  I doubt it.  Corporations would keep their lips tightly sealed, while the politicians and religious leaders would practice the age-old technique of doublespeak.

And so we come to the most recent of members to the "homosexual-rights" bandwagon, the Republicans.  It has been amazing that after this election cycle how many Republicans have become advocates.  I found it interesting to read.  Granted the Libertarians had always been in favor of it.  I suppose that was wind in the perfect storm, but the other fact was that the religious vote just doesn't mean anything.  The younger evangelicals could care less about Caesar and his elections, but those who do still care are going to vote Republican anyway so what does it matter what the party thinks?

And Portman, always the adaptable political player, has metamorphosed once again into a person who accepts homosexuality.  While some may come out praising his "courage" for, not becoming an ally, but just affirming that homosexuals should be allowed to marry in civil unions (something it should be noted that even the members who have broken off of mainline protestant churches affirm); we must look at the history of this politician.

I know this is going to touch a sensitive nerve here, but I actually am offended by this editorial.  He states that his Christian religion led him to his harsh stance, but the love of his son led him to a changed mind (what the Greeks would call metanoia).  The blessing should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the heresies of Conservative Evangelicals.  He became reconciled to family and nation; and what was the sacrifice legalistic Christianity.

Rob, I give up legalistic Christianity daily.  Its what Luther calls daily repentance and renewal.  Its called understanding that your country and your own heart are sometimes out to make your life hell.  I started this process in high school after reading Bonhoeffer's ethics.  I didn't need a son coming out to me to show me that legalism isn't the heart of the gospel.  I knew it because of Christ's death on the cross.  I knew it because I wrestle daily with urges of pride and envy and greed and dishonesty and, most importantly, idolatry.

I am glad Mr. Portman has decided that homosexuals should be allowed to be recognized as equal under the law of government.  I am just angered by his reasoning.  I am angered that he didn't understand his alleged faith enough to see that it allows for people with whom one disagrees to be given the same rights under the law.  I am angered that he used his son as the reason instead of his faith.

However, I am most angered by the charlatans like Mr. Portman who jump on the bandwagon of protecting a group of persecuted people for their own gain.  I wonder how many non-Christians will assume that the debate that went on inside Mr. Portman's soul was a debate between the real Christianity and the love of family or human rights.  Like all charlatans, Mr. Portman tries to square the circle by saying he is for churches who disagree with homosexuality.  He wants to have his cake and eat it too; and in our day and age of over-simplified media sound bites, I imagine he will get his wish.  The gay-rights' groups will trumpet his support as yet another sign of the march of progress; and for services rendered Mr. Portman will become a little more palatable to changing demographics in this country.  And in the end only two groups will have lost, orthodox Christians who believe in the dignity of human beings made in the image of God but ultimately flawed and sinful, and the homosexuals who will have found themselves used once again to further some person's campaign.  Meanwhile the corporations, the activists, the politicians, Christendom's lapdogs, and talking-heads will have moved forward in the name of progress but under the influence of their own self-importance.

But here is the hopeful part.  When the parade is gone and all the sycophants don't need to suck-up to anyone anymore; we Christians will still be behind ... like we always have been.  And maybe after the hoopla and intoxicating rhetoric, we will be able to speak openly of our sins to a world in need of a savior who, it just so happens, is waiting after the grandstanding is over, to be introduced to just one more person in need.  It has been repeated so often that we forget the meaning, "that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, so that whoever believes in him may not parish but have eternal life."  Luther called that the Gospel in the nutshell; and its nice to know that after all the writing and rewriting of principles, and the minting and reminting of new paradigms; the Gospel still remains true and unalterable.  I am a sinner exactly like you, but thankfully that is exactly who God came to save.

Dreams and Discipline

The other day, as people may have read, I was dealing with a sense of guilt.  This usually stems from me not being where I would like to be, whether it be my personal life or my professional one (whatever that is).  I still stand by my belief that too many of us are hopelessly not taking our guilt seriously.  We are not trying to get better.

Yet, I just watched a TED talk by the education reformer Sir Ken Robinson (actually I watched two, but in my defense I don't have cable).  It was in one of these that Robinson told the story of a person who had always wanted to be a fireman, he had been chastened by society and went ahead with his dream anyway.  The story is too good for me to ruin in this blog post, but I want to point out something that struck me about what Robinson said and what I was thinking about last night; we are bombarded with conflicting ideas and the question is how do we square the circle?

This is what academics call a paradox.  On one hand we have to believe in our dreams, while on the other hand we must rise above our vices.  Yet, both of these are found in the same human being.  Sometimes our vices are part of our dreams; the person with a reckless personality is a great adventurer or hero.  The person with a compassionate heart sometimes neglects wise decisions; while a person with a good head lacks compassion.  On and on, virtue and vice are tied together.

Yet there is a deeper question and problem at work here.  How do we make children feel empowered to do great things in life, while also making them aware that self-discipline is extremely important?  Or to use an example, how do we help the person who is gifted at ... say ... philosophy fill in paperwork.  Its much like telling a child that sweets are good, but broccoli is necessary. 

At root is the age old battle between love and fear.  Why do we fill out paperwork?  Simple, because some lawyer or accountant is going to nail us, or the organization of which we take part.  Yet, in the past years have more shady scandals happened or less?  Worse still is that no one really likes doing what they do; or if they still do they feel hampered in by what society demands they must do.  I would love to only have school and work, but there are a myriad of other things to do.  

Just this morning, I tried to access a system that has all my old pay stubs.  Until 2010 or so, my company would give us physical pay stubs.  I would through them in the trash (sometimes I would remember to shred them).  However, the company decided to go paperless which is great for the environment, but requires all sorts of passwords (its password demands are the hardest I have ever seen).  After half-an-hour of trying to hack into my own system, I was still denied.  At time of writing, I am still waiting until I can access it.

This is just one part of the numerous things that keep us from reaching our dreams and goals.  It is important to learn about financial discipline, but it is also important to learn that testing has its limit.  Taxes and tuition.  Homework assignments and housework.  How much of all this is necessary; and how much is death by a thousand cuts.

When I read books or write papers, there is no real time for me to do it.  To really read or write, one needs time.  One needs at least an half-hour to start up and multiple breaks every forty-five minutes.  We can call that inefficient, but the human brain must gather momentum and must allow ideas time ruminate or gestate like food or drink.  Life, like music, is about the rests as well as the notes.

So, what must happen is a real talk about discipline and dreams.  When does one take control and when does one leave off?  I think the answer is in the flourishing of the human.  A human being who truly adds something to the story of humanity is one who links his or her dreams with the needs of the world.  If this the answer than we see that dreams and discipline naturally fall into place.  Yet we have become a society that has replaced dreams and disciplines with demands.  We now have no time to have dreams or discipline. When we dream it is a daydream, when we are disciplined it is by the law which is a lousy moral reforming agent.

Yet this is what is required of a reformation.  We need to stop imagining the world as it is ... only more efficient; and start imagining a better world.  Do what you can with the gifts that you have and the dreams that you have.  We must understand that we have to train up and be disciplined, but that we should not be incapacitated by that that disciplining process.  We have forgotten how to love in this age of fear.  We have forgotten the possibilities.  We have forgotten how to dream while we are awake.

Guilt Matters

Today in church, my priest spoke of how too often we speak of "Christian struggles" as if they are afterthoughts to "bad behavior."  We have already thrown in the towel and not really taken the sin as the disuniting thing it truly is.  A look at most of contemporary society sees the exact same thing from our everyday lives to our entertainment.  I am not arguing here for a world of extroverts, but rather one that takes others into consideration.  Perhaps one of the first places to start is to look at guilt.

Our American culture has done everything in its power to remove guilt and shame from the American experience.  In fact the only people who are told to feel guilty are those who advocate guilt and shame.  Yet at the root guilt and shame deal with the fact that human beings feel disunion.  Public policies and even debates are not built on love and reconciliation, but rather a zero-sum game.  The political right and political left as well as their religious counter-parts are guilty of this.  Not that being guilty has any force behind it, so I shall say what is my most inflammatory criticism.  

I do not feel nearly so guilty or ashamed as I do; and you probably feel it too.  If you are like me, you probably have been told that you shouldn't feel ashamed or guilty.  If you are religious, you have probably been told that "your sins are forgiven and everything is okay."  If you are not religious, you have probably been told that guilt and shame are religious deadweight getting in the way of your self-actualization.  The fact is that there is grace of course (both in the religious and secular sense to an extent), but we must take into account the importance of being ashamed for our actions and being convicted of our guilt.

Guilt, as people point out, is when the self feels as if he or she has violated some law; while shame is more about violating the group dynamic.  While there are times when people must question what people call law or group dynamics, the pendulum has swung way too far to the other extreme.  How often do we justify our own sense of entitlement over and against what seems to be natural law or the needs of society.  This is the time when guilt and shame kick in to tell us something is wrong; yet our society (be it secular or religious) tells us that this feeling is the aberration and not the thing for which we are fighting.  When a normal person commits a crime, that person feels guilt.  To override this feeling, leads to continuing its behavior and creating disunion between us and the rest of the world.  We feel as if we have become special cases and the world owes us something.  In the end a world without guilt or shame leads to hell on earth.  Guilt is a warning light, it is annoying and painful but must be answered.

When we speak of struggling with something, let us take it seriously.  This is some outside parasite and disease struggling to overtake us and replicate itself in us.  It is hell attempting to turn us into carriers of hell.  Yet, if we recognize it and don't delude ourselves into thinking it is something which it is not; we must fight it and struggle with it and hopefully have it rejected from us.  Christians say this is the work of the Holy Spirit, and I firmly believe that one cannot fight something with nothing.  Yet, for the secularist it should be pointed out that one can overcome many "sins" with hard work and discipline.  For the Christian though, sin can only be rooted out by accepting the Holy Spirit and His work of the Church and the Gospel.  Yet we must not pretend that we are saved just because we have invoked the Holy Spirit; a life which is changed will produce the reality of reconciliation that we seek.  A life which remains unchanged means that we have forgotten that we are all still very guilty and have much to be ashamed of.  It is not a pleasant message, but it is a hopeful one.  The more unpleasant message would be to say we are all okay and beautiful just the way we are; but anyone who has spent time with a person who believes such nonsense about himself or herself is quickly looking for the nearest exit.  Rather we look to be with and become the person who sees the flaws in one's life; works to living each day a little bit more in tune with law and neighbor; and sees that the work of the Holy Spirit will mend our lives only as much as we take Him seriously.

The church of "I'm okay, you're okay."

Its a bit too late to blog, but I am trying to make it a point to do so every night that I can.  I can't help but think we are doing this all terribly wrong in the church.  It bothers me that we seem to downplay sin and the problems of the church.  We have an almost bipolar notion of the evils of the world.  At one moment we talk about total depravity and the fallen world as if it is so impossibly evil, and then the next we find ourselves talking about is wondrous beauty.  I can't help but think we are doing this all a grave disservice.  The world is truly atrocious; but there is something which preserves it.  However, American Christianity becomes so focused on that redemptive grace that we often exclude the evil from which it stands in stark contrast.

It is not enough for us to say how wonderful the church is and then overlook the fact that it is made of very fallible human beings.  We must acknowledge that the church is made of flawed people such as ourselves and work for a reconciliation with how it should be.  The world sees us as patting ourselves on the back; but questions why we do such things.  Our accomplishments do not warrant such self-congratulatory behavior.  It is here where someone would say, "exactly, and that is the point of grace."  I would ask, "Then why are we congratulating ourselves for it?  Grace is not something we bestow upon ourselves."  We demand this "cheap grace" for our own merits, but the church demonstrates just how foolish it is to live expecting merits.  The church's failures show our desperate need for reconciliation and represent a microcosm of God's plan for the redemption of the cosmos.  Truly it starts here first ... that is, if we are humble enough to see it.  We must make the church the family it has always declared itself to be, only then will we be reflecting real grace and not the "I'm okay, you're okay" grace of a people who haven't yet given up on redemption by the law. 

That Fine Balance

Recently, in my class on Bonhoeffer, the professor made a point of stating that Bonhoeffer had said the church should make statements that are relevant today.  The Beatitudes are more than dos and do nots, but need to be contextualized in sermons and statements from the pulpit.  Such thoughts seem to fly in the face of accepted wisdom though.  Nothing seems more unnecessary and irrelevant than one more ill-informed voice whining about the problems of life.  A perusal of Facebook or Twitter proves just how problematic such a desire can be.

Yet Bonhoeffer meant nothing of the sort.  Fortunately I have friends who are far left and far right.  Both sides operate from a world based on fear and scarcity.  The ideologies may not see their partisans offering any hope to the world, but at least they will protect against the clearly evil opposing party.  To this Bonhoeffer is clear that the problems and evils of our society are great; it is solved with humble critiques and not by demagoguery.  It is best to take our template from the sermon on the mount.  It is best to look, really look, at the needs of the victims of society.  How often do we talk as if we know what is best for someone only to do what we want couched in language of compassionate altruism?  When will we learn that we must stand for the manifestation of Christ's kingdom instead of the political mood dressed up in Christian garments?  When we allow the crucified Christ to take not just our sins but our ideologies that get in the way of our obedience?

The world finds an easy target of Christians taking a stand for temporal things that have no bearing on our salvation.  It needs something more.  It needs Christians who see beyond taxes, guns, and superficialities to the needs of real people.  Whatever the pastor or church may say is bound to be deliberately misquoted by those opposed to the Gospel, but the alternative is far worse: a silent church that offers no hope in eternity, no faith in a resurrection  and no love with God and neighbor.  We find the portrayal of the the church as between that of a bad family and a negligent family.  The simple answer is that the church must speak its truth; but in a way that sees not good and evil people, but sinners in need of reconciliation.

What if the church that railed against abortion was the church that provided for the widow and orphan as well?  What if the church that decried gun violence offered a better way than that of the gun?  What if the church saw justice and righteousness as the same thing?  What if we forgave, really forgave, as our Lord Jesus Christ forgave on the cross?  What if we weren't afraid to call sin what it was, but also called grace what it was as well?  What if we sacrificed our political voice for the voice calling out on the hill of the Beatitudes?  The goal of every Christian is to sacrifice being right for being a little Christ.  In this we find that we speak less of the evils of society, but against them all the more.  Yet at the root is the hope that grace will flow down and change a hopeless world into one that can hope again.  It will not be accomplished by politics, economics, or society; but by Christians being unashamed of who they are and humble enough to accept their own call to action.   

We aren't losing because we're irrelevant, we are losing because we are stupid. (Part One: Doctrine)

Recently I made the horrible mistake of reading a meme from Family Guy.  Seth MacFarlane, the creator of Family Guy, is an avowed atheist; though of the particularly nasty stripe that disparages Christianity.  In the frame, Stewie (the precocious baby) tells Brian (the show's straight-man ... and family dog) that the futuristic utopia they have happened upon is actually an alternate universe in the same time and place.  However, it is an alternate place where Christianity has never happened.

It would be too easy to get into an argument about the faulty reasoning and philosophical problems involved in such propaganda chicanery.  Instead, I would like to focus my guns at Christians.  Here is why: I actually felt bad to be a Christian.  I thought: Is this really how people think of me?  Do my close friends who are atheists really believe I am a malevolent imp; some creature whose only puzzle is whether he is more evil than stupid or vice-versa?  Are we really as bad as all that?

Let us look first at the lowest common denominators.  Flipping on the television or wander into (if you dare) a Christian bookstore; and the case for Christianity is definitely not good.  Perhaps the better proof of this case is just to wander into the "religion" section of a local grocery store.  The books there are self-serving, self-help, easy-cheap-grace tripe of no real value.  They may keep a few people who would wander out of the religion still in the fold, but at what cost?  Joel Osteen's smiling mug or a formulaic Christian fiction book is at best a guilty pleasure; but has more in common with food stolen from a midnight raid on the freezer than actual nourishment.  Much of this, is what C.S. Lewis calls "Christianity and Water."  It is as he says, "the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right—leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption."*  (It must be said that this notion has enjoyed a great segmenting in recent years.  Perhaps I will go into the differences between Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and American Civil Religion in another post, but for now this will suffice for my argument.)

H. Richard Niebuhr points out the problem of this quite well when he declares, "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."☨  This is the kind of check-out counter Christianity that many in the church like to read.  "God likes you just as you are and wants you to be happy," it declares.  If we read "just as you are" as "never having to grow-up" or "being happy" as "being comfortable"; than it may keep in a few, but can hardly stand up to the thrashing that atheism or even real Christianity will bring to bear.  (And trust me, the Holy Spirit can deliver blows to convict the human soul that atheism would find crippling.)

This portrayal of Christianity makes us easy pickings for a world already hostile to the message.  What grace do we have to impart?  What future reconciliation are we to give?  What philosophical questions do we answer?  If we get our theology from the check-out counter, than none at all.  The real atheist should know this is not the Christianity he or she truly must oppose, yet it is the one they do oppose.  Here the open-minded atheist and the devout Christian will find common ground.

Yet, are these books really the best-selling?  Well, Gary Chapman's "5 Love Languages" tops Amazon, but "Mere Christianity" is number two.  In fact perusing it yields a baffling result, there is no real theme to what Christians buy.  Classics sit next to flashes-in-the-pan.  Insightful books sit next to fluff.  All this says that American Christianity is conspicuously without doctrine.  Some may say that is a good thing because doctrine is nothing more than nasty rules which hamper God from letting us be unique little snow-flakes.  Yet, looking at the dismal state of affairs of the average American Christian, can we really say it is a worse alternative?

It seems clear that a little doctrine would be nice.  Doctrine allows Christianity to truly compete in the world of ideas.  Doctrine establishes the ground rules for the debate.  We don't have to worry that some foolish hipster or back woods good-ol'-boy or nutty professor with no education and a King James Bible is being given equal weight as St. Augustine, Luther, or N. T. Wright.  In essence, we don't have to worry about flanking maneuvers. We can say this is what we believe.  Of course there will be differences, we aren't giving up on those; but we won't have to allow the minor issues distract from the central messages.  It is a battle which is easier stated as necessary than fought out.  The Reformation and Counter-Reformation offered us a glimpse of how bad things can get; but it is necessary.  I am a Lutheran at a Wesleyan school attending an Anglican or Evangelical Church.  Anglicans, Catholics, and Calvinists sit side by side on my bookshelf.  I agree with some more than others, but the point is that I can see the orthodoxy in them.  We don't have to be clones to be the church.  In fact, I believe that is what God would have of us.

So, it is no wonder that we are easy pickings for Atheists.  They seem to have a better grasp of us than we do.  If you want a good place to start think of Christianity this way:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Is there debate in this?  Of course, but it is at the heart true.  It is a unified front.  It will bring together the most disparate groups of Christians.  And if you can't agree on this, perhaps the problem isn't with the church, but with yourself.  Maybe you have been led to believe you do deserve a more personal God who allows you to add and subtract what you want from your faith.  The question then is what do you really believe, Christianity or a very cheap replica picked up at the local supermarket?

MacFarlane may be right about a Christian faith which represses "right thinking" if all he is shown is one which will believe anything at all; but Christian doctrine (real doctrine) is a lot harder to dismiss or disprove.  When it wakes, it will not be so easy to mock as a strawman for an internet meme.

  

* C. S. Lewis (2011-11-22T05:13:54+00:00). Mere Christianity (Kindle Locations 604-605). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. 

☨ The Kingdom of God in America (1937), New York: Harper and Row, 1959, p. 193

Its been awhile.

Its been awhile, so why start up again?  Why do this thing?  There are deadlines and paperwork still to fill out.  That doesn't even begin to deal with the very real issue of sleep.  Why stay up late and write this?  Simple, this is what I do.  Its what I love to do.  Hopefully, I will keep up with it.

I have been finding, of recent, that my life has lost some semblance of the order which it used to possess.  I do not mean that I am crazy or overcome with doubt, but that in my pursuit of what should be done, I have been negligent in what must be done.  I have been trying far too hard to be humble and in that pursuit, I have lost sight of humility.  I have become, in effect, pointless.  Books I want to read gather on my shelves unread along side books I am supposed to be reading.  Professors ask me to write essays that are supposed to get at the root of me, but they ask me to go too deep on my soul too quickly.  We ask a lot of people in essays describing themselves; but as much as Americans are portrayed as swaggering braggarts, we are really quite self-effacing.  Perhaps most of us Americans have bought into a myth that we are constantly having to write introductory letters to apply for being most awesome in the world?  I still think we are the best, perhaps not so much because of our latest accomplishments, but rather because of our potential.

That seems like the best reason to write a blog: potentiality.  I read over my old blogs (from the site I can't seem to access anymore), and think about how it sounds.  I like that writer.  I like his style and his insights.  It isn't pride to think one is genuinely talented in some field.  I don't really know what it is.  I don't know that author anymore and I want to know him again.  He seemed to say things and talk about things that really matter; and in the end the real American wants to matter and write about things that matter.  I want to be that person.  I don't want to be some person who sits on the sidelines because he thinks he is being too proud if he goes in.  I don't want to be that person whose essays and points are driven by due dates.  I want to be the person who rights about something because it matters.  Life matters.  The stupid stuff one did today matters.  So, while a lot has changed since I wrote last; a lot has stayed the same.  The world still matters.

Yet the one thing I will say is this, I need this.  I didn't know how much I needed it then, but I realize that it is something that has been dreadfully missing in my life.  I miss speaking.  I miss being a participant.  I miss being in the game.  Its been awhile, time to forget about false humility, and get in there and do what I do well.  Its time to write again.