Portuguese Man o' War

Portuguese Man o’ War Like the Portuguese Man of War, I have no tail to propel me; no fins to stabilize me. I am adrift, at the mercy of wind, wave and current to carry me to food or to a sandy death on the seashore. There is little of true substance to me; I could be called "jelly." I must wait for food to, from the Hand of the great Giver, though from my self-centric position, I like to think I earned it. I have a sail on which the wind can act, grappling hooks to hold onto what is given; flotation to keep me from sinking, but none of these are under my control-they are how I was made, not how I made myself. The Wind is the Spirit blowing on the sail of my heart, guiding and directing at His will. The current is the Spirit, holding me up, guiding and directing me in His wisdom. Food is He who is the Bread of Life with Whom He brings me into contact The sandy shore is that place and time where and when He brings me to ground-to rest. I, the surrendered, live in His direction; in His bounty and in His time and timing. 6 21 09 See Wikipedia.org for article on the Portuguese man o’ war

Body Image

Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Isaiah 53 A beautiful woman, an idol of her time, the perfect image of the time and place's most cherished ideal of woman, was asked: "What would you change about yourself?" Instantly, she replied, "My nose." "Why?" asked the questioner. "It's too long." she said as if it were perfectly obvious. It wasn't as far as millions of people were concerned, but for her, this tiny unnoticed imperfection ruled her sense of self. Jesus is usually portrayed as the perfect image of a man for the time and culture of the artist, but one artist depicted Him as a hunchback, scandalous to most of us. But notice what Isaiah says: "despised and rejected." This is before the section of that most glorious and horrific of chapters in which He bears our sins and carries our sorrows. Is it possible that He was deformed in some way? Probably not. Yet, He had nothing of physical attribute to attract either. Then, finally, He became sin for us. Isaiah, in the verses preceding the chapter on the Suffering Servant: His appearance was marred more than any man And His form more than the sons of men. (52:14) For those of us who have some physical imperfection, it is common to have people stare at the oddity. I think of the "elephant man" whose face was so disfigured that women fainted and children ran away screaming. He became a wonderful Christian and his story is a testimony to transforming grace. But back to Jesus. If for some reason He was not that perfect specimen; if nothing else but that He was ordinary looking with no physical defects, this is a tremendous lift to me. Not only did He take my sins, wondrous as that is, but He also lived in my shoes. He felt the sting of the local bully's teasing; he felt the critical stares of other mothers as they compared Him to their perfections; He knew the agony of the rejection of oddity. He walked in my shoes. The rejection which is part of my life is borne by Him who experienced the same. I take comfort in the fact that He knows the bite of rejection, the feel of scorn, the lash of rejection. And I, knowing the same, can know His sorrows and sense His pain. We share in one another's sufferings. What a wonder! My pain resolves into a shared joy of comrades in misery, but that company buoys each the other.   6 3 09

Signed in Blood

The Bible is written in blood; signed in blood--the blood of Jesus Christ. Every word, every character, every dot on every I is written in His blood. Without it, the words would have no meaning. No message of deliverance would be in its pages. It would be a dead book of history of an ancient civilization, not the actions of a God who invaded this world in a way that changed everything. 04.17.03

Irresistible Force vs Immovable Object 2: An Example

After posting the last blog, Irresistible Force vs Immovable Object, I thought it wise to give a scriptural example. Exhibit A is Paul aka Saul. As you probably remember, Paul was born “Saul” to Jewish parents in Tarsus, a city in modern Turkey, just north of the curve of the Mediterranean as it turns southward toward Egypt. No doubt his parents were strict Jews, as he was sent to Jerusalem to study under a world famous rabbi, named Gamaliel. A child prodigy, he was fast becoming the prize student, progressing, as he said, “beyond his peers.” As most of the rabbinical students could quote most or all of the Hebrew scriptures from memory, his excelling must have meant an exceptional talent for memory, debate and must have had a reputation for an exemplary life. He would have had to keep all 616 rabbinic laws relating to the dozens of Mosaic laws; Paul knew how to obey. Saul’s training was occurring just at the time of the beginning of the Christian era. He must have witnessed or at least heard of Jesus, Jon, peter and James. He had to have known something of the claims of Jesus’ miracles and the day of Pentecost. Somehow, with his nose in the book, he was not swayed. Rather, in fact, he became even more zealous for his traditions. It started with the death of the first Christian martyr, Stephen. Saul watched over the coats of those slinging stones at Stephen. One can imagine a young man, unwilling to get his hands dirty—he was too much of a scholar, too much of a Pharisee to dirty his hands, literally or figuratively. As an aside, Saul was named for King Saul, first king of Israel, the people-selected king. This king came to no good end, but somehow, his tarnished reputation was overcome and Jewish boys were named for him, perhaps as a nostalgic glance over the shoulder at Israel’s glory days. Now Saul means “ditch, hole in the ground or grave. Not sure I’d like to be named “grave.” It doesn’t seem conducive for a stable life among one’s peers. So, a young man who was an extraordinary scholar, one who kept the law, whose name meant death, became a murderer by proxy. He was so zealous for his religion that he brought to Jewish justice those of “the Way” as Christians were known in his day. Having cleared Jerusalem, he sought and received permission to go to Damascus to begin the process of cleaning up the rats nest which had fled from Jerusalem into this ancient Syrian city. Later, he was to say, he was proceeding “breathing out wrath” and One can imagine this holy man, striding along the dusty road, using every word he can think of short of blasphemy, to describe what he is going to do to those unsuspecting refugees. His traveling companions must have kept their distance from him; few enjoy the company of a fanatic in full battle mode. Suddenly Saul is hurled to the ground-not by force, note, but by a blinding light. In the light, Saul sees one whom he has not met but knows. Now many a blasphemer has challenged God to strike them dead as proof that there is no God. One such, challenged God and was struck dumb, not by God, but by the comment of a passerby: “If your son asked you to do such, would you?” So, here is Saul, on his way to destroy fleeing remnants of the infant church. Instead of striking him dead, the Heavenly Vision calls his name: “Saul, Saul” “Death, Death.” Then makes a gentle comment: “It is hard to kick against the ox goad, isn’t it, Saul?” Nothing more; no condemnation, no coercion; just a simple statement indicating just how well the Interrogator knew him. Now Saul is undone: “What will You have me do?” he asks. Now it is not Saul, but the Heavenly Vision who is guiding and directing him. He is overwhelmed by the love in the face of Him Whom he has been persecuting. His life ends and he is reborn in an instant. The one who will later say “I was the worst of sinners,” is turned inside out and upside down. All else fades to nothingness in the face of the glory of Jesus Christ. A number of years later, Saul will change his name to Paul. It happens between verses during his first missionary journey. From that time on, he was known as “Paul” which means “Little.” From deadly Saul to little Paul. Now, in his own eyes, he is small-measuring his stature, his worth, against the infinite, not the finite rule-bound religion of his youth. Such, I believe, will be the experience of those, who in this era, this lifetime, do not have the chance because of circumstance of birth, of training, of location, of family to truly know the One who died for them. There are far more in this class than in the tiny group which makes up even the combined Catholic and Protestant world. How fair is it, how just, to permit billions upon billions to roast in hell or die forever, who never knew anything about the Lord Jesus? How fair that a child raised in physical or sexual abuse who grows to abuse the next generation should be so condemned? If this condemnation be true, I would challenge God to His face to demonstrate how One who claims to be love can be just, fair and loving. We would not so treat a fellow human, how can the Infinite, all-knowing, all loving One do so and make such claims? He cannot; He does not. Love will find a way. He must, He will or risk a just condemnation of His own. 11.26.12

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