Irresistible Force vs Immovable Object-1

One warm spring morning, at the time of year when men’s hearts turn to thoughts of love, Frank is strolling along Main Street with his buddies on their way to the soda fountain. They have two objectives: get a root beer float and eye the pretty girls. As young men are wont to do, they are talking much too loudly, pushing and shoving each other and generally making themselves appear young and foolish. I know because, aged though I be, I haven’t forgotten every juvenile thing I did. Frank and his gang approach the door to the drug store (where soda fountains used to be in the Good Old Days). From the opposite direction, a gaggle of girls approaches. Being Young Women, they are much less boisterous; they whisper among themselves and giggle behind their hands when they see the boys. Our hero casts an appraising eye over the selection of young beauties. Lightning flashes, thunder roars and he stops dead in his tracks. His buddies move on ahead of him and he doesn’t notice. He is suddenly and completely in love; he sees Olivia. Now Olivia need not be the most beautiful among the maidens; she need not be the most outgoing. For the sake of our story, Frank, in that age-old mystery of first-sight love, need only see her to be smitten. The two groups enter the drug store and begin the embarrassing tactical ritual of, “Who sits where?” Frank, being the expert cowboy he is (Did I mention he is a cowboy?), cut Olivia from the herd and wrangled a seat next to her at the counter. Now the Herculean task begins: how does he get her attention and win her favor? As all heroes must, he is tongue-tied and red-faced. But love conquers and he manages to stammer a squeaky “Hi.” Of course, being the female of the species, she ignores him and turns to her left to make a comment to her friend. Frank is crushed, but undefeated. We shall draw a veil over the rest of the scene as it is too painful to contemplate. Needless to say, Frank withdraws, having leaving his root beer totally untasted. The next weekend, after gathering his courage, he loiters around the drug store, hoping she will reappear. When he hears the sound of girlish laughter, he straightens and turns to watch. When they are within earshot, he steps in front of the group, forcing them to stop. He fixes Olivia with a stare that could bend a steel bar at fifty paces and says, “Will you go to the dance with me tonight?” From the look on her face, he cannot tell if she is undecided, horrified, or amused. She smiles and his heart leaps with joy. “No,” she says, and gathering her skirts around her, leads her pack into the cool interior. Frank is devastated. But Frank is also determined. He asks about her everywhere. His peers are confused by this sudden change in Frank; adults are amused and reminded of their own youth. He shows up at odd times and places: church socials, the sidewalk in front of her house, at the door of the millinery shop. At first she ignores him. Then she turns away when she sees him. Finally she becomes rude and says, “Go away.” Frank, being Frank, persists. She becomes angry. One hundred years later, she would call her attorney and file a harassment suit against him for stalking. The point of this story not being the story, I shall let you finish it at your leisure to your own satisfaction and get on with my point. The Ancient philosophers must have had too much time on their hands. They argued about such trivialities as “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” and “What happens when the Irresistible Force meets the Immovable Object.” Somehow they convinced someone to pay them to think and argue such deep thoughts. So, OK now that I am retired, I can sit around and do the same-which makes me about as useful as a philosopher. Waking early this morning, I began ruminating over the Object/Force question. At first, it seems that there are three possible outcomes: win, lose, draw. If Irresistible Force (from now on “Force”) meets the Irresistible Object (Object), if Force pushes Object out of place, Force wins and Object loses; Object is not immovable after all. If Object cannot be budged, Force is not irresistible after all. In losing, one or the other is proven not to be what it claimed. It appears that the only true result must always be a tie. But, on closer examination, this cannot be true. If Force does not overcome Object, the result is not a tie, but a loss for Force and it is proven to be an imposter to its eternal shame. So we are right back where we started from. Or are we; is this the only possible way Force and Object can resolve their impasse? Is Frank and Olivia’s social dilemma only resolved by obstinately resisting or continuous assault? The basic assumption of the problem is presented as if Object has in its core nature to be obstinate and Force must, by nature, exert itself against any object, including one which it cannot overcome. Must both parties act in accordance with their nature? Force forcing and Object resisting? What if Object decided to cooperate with Force? What if Force decided not to act against Object? What if they went merrily along their way holding hands forever instead of battling it out over which is superior? What if the two of them sat down and parlayed a treaty in which, each recognizing the benefits of an alliance, agreed to work cooperatively? After all, with Irresistible Force and Immovable Object as players in this cosmic Superhero story, what other actor would have a chance? Could not Force stop its forceful nature behavior and present logic or it could attempt to woo with thoughtful gestures and heartfelt pledges of love and devotion. Circumstances might change; Force could be called away to deal with a crisis in its own domain and forget all about Object or the rest of the universe could be swept away in a devastating black hole. Force and Object, left to themselves, might find some common ground in which neither sought to win but to cooperate. How does this apply to real life? Good question; glad you asked. On the human scale—person to person, group to group, nation to nation-much of our interaction is in terms of power, of force. For example, what might have happened had the victorious allies not imposed, by force of arms, a punitive armistice on World War I’s loser, Germany? Would Hitler have had a fertile soil in which to grow, mature and fruit into a destructive force? Without Hitler’s aggression, would the empire of the Tsars defeated the Communist rebels? Would the Soviet Union have come into existence? Would there have been a “Cold War” an arms race, a Korea, a Vietnam? Could the billions of dollars and the hundreds of thousands of lives expended been put to better use? Who knows? As these are moot questions, without answers, since history is a one-way, one-choice street. But it could’ve been so. In an even more macro view, in the tension between God and man, how does the Object/Force drama play itself out? Two views of God prevail in the Christian world today: Calvinism and Armenianism. Those who champion Calvin argue that God’s will cannot be overcome; those who are saved are saved in spite of themselves; those who are lost are likewise doomed to their predestined fate. Tipping their hat to Arminius, those who are in opposition to Calvin vehemently take the position that it is man’s free will which is in charge-It is man who accepts or rejects God’s freely offered grace. Both parties can quote miles of scriptures to buttress their position. As in many such theological controversies, both are partly right and partly wrong. It’s not an either/or but a both/and. Let me put it in the terms of Immovable Object/Irresistible Force. If God is the Irresistible Force and mankind the Immovable Object, then we are confronted with exactly the same dilemma: who wins? As in the Object/Force debate, mankind need only resist and God loses-He is no longer an irresistible force. If He slinks away into Himself, leaving us to our own devices, He has lost by default. But is it such a contest? Are these the only options open to the two sides? Here is an outline of our choices: 1. Accept 2. Reject Here are God’s choices: 1. Force; 2. Abandon; 3. Trick 4. Woo In this power equation, mankind holds all the cards. As in the relationship between the genders, the power is in the one who can say “No.” (I know there are exceptions, but I’m talking about a real relationship, not rape.). In the range of God’s choices, I reject trickery and abandonment out of hand as both are not of His nature. We are left with the choices of force and wooing-both of which have scriptural support: God forces; man rejects; God forces: man yields God woos: man rejects God woos: man yields Of the four, only the last can result in a harmonious long-lasting relationship. I would contend that God’s will is that all would be saved and enter into an eternal loving relationship with Him. I would also argue that mankind, fully understanding God’s will perfectly displayed in His love, will ultimately freely and joyously yield-thereby reconciling Irresistible Force and Immovable Object. Though He could coerce, He does not. Rather, He exposes Himself to us, drawing us to what He is. He is confident that, knowing Him, we will be drawn into His embrace-finally and fully children of the heavenly Father. Like the prodigal son, drawn homeward for survival, but staying because of the party, all will finally see Him as He is: pure love. It is a yielding, not of subjection and defeat, but of awe and wonder at what and who He is and an incredulous shaking of the head at our own resistance. 11.15.12