Late Night/Early Morning: A Resolution

I question everything. I need a purpose for everything I do. Questions give me the potential for answers, which leads me to finding purpose. It seems logical to me. Logic. That's an old friend and enemy at the same time. On the one hand, I've found logic and reasoning to serve me well and lead me down the wisest path; however, on the other hand, logic and reasoning leave me... wanting. I feel an almost compulsion to have everything orderly in my mind and to make sense of things around me, but sometimes, all that leaves me with is more questions and an empty feeling in my chest. So what's missing? Everyone around me tells me it is emotion, feeling, that I lack. They tell me I am heartless, cold, unfeeling. Am I? I've seen what emotions do to people. I've seen it first hand ruin lives. Is all that really necessary? Something in my mind nudges me toward... yes, it is. But that's my problem lately. I just cannot figure out why something so fickle is so important to a large majority of humanity. In addition to my need to rationalize, I feel compelled to remain as distant from emotion and feeling, without seeming like a sociopath, as I possibly can (aside from sporadic bursts from a deep well of pain or the occasional glimpse of true joy of Christ). I look at my faith, though. The faith I have in Christ. It is a logical faith to me. It is a religion of reason. I just can't shake the feeling that it calls for more than that though and understand, if it does, why it does. I have to know. I need to know why emotions are so important to humanity, to my humanity. I need to know what it's like to feel the way other people do and not just do things out of compulsion or reason. The only time I can ever remember feeling an overwhelming, uncontrollable, indescribable emotion is anytime I think of or hear about victims of human trafficking. I feel my insides nearly literally break in two and that I HAVE to do something about it. Maybe that's why I want to use nursing to help them... I subconsciously want to feel something. Maybe all of this is nonsense. I'm not sure. I am not really one to make new year's resolutions, as I am constantly setting goals for myself and find doing it only once a year to be a shallow attempt at making one feel better about themselves, but perhaps this year I shall. I'll make it a goal to honestly attempt to understand this whole feelings thing again, with the ulterior motive of deepening relationships long stressed by my compulsions.

Crying Heart

Stabbing. That's the only word close enough to what my heart feels. It feels like I've been stabbed in my heart. It's a heartache so real, it nearly renders me useless as a human being. My brother has always been my hero, my protector, my person to go to for advice, my father figure (since there's 13 years between us). I've looked up to him for the last 22 years and, though I've known for a while now that he wasn't perfect, this situation just really hit that point home for me. My heart cries out for him and his terror and pain. I know he caused this, but he has unjustly been charged. I just... I'm not going to see my brother for a long time and to be honest, I almost believe him when he says he'll kill himself before he serves all of his time. My biggest fear my entire life has been losing my oldest brother. Selfishly, that's what I fear. I can't call him in the middle of the night anymore when I'm upset, I can't text him about a problem, I can't Skype for a chat, I can't be hugged by him, I can't... I'm losing my brother.

Everyone thinks I'm so cold and heartless, but I'm not. I feel. I hurt. And I just want my brother back. I just want him to be free. I know it's illogical to want such things. I know he's made his bed and is being forced to lie in it. I know there's nothing any of us can do to change it. But this is just how I feel. I don't always agree with him or condone every choice he's made, but he is my brother. I'll always love my brother.

Jesus is the Christ

I am quite fond of reading books on a multitude of subject matters. I like to know things and I like to see what others think apart from myself. I would like to think it helps me refine my own thoughts and opinions of things to know what else is out there. If my faith is as steadfast as I believe it to be, then what have I to worry about in wavering from it? No matter how far I have gone in the past, I have always come back to Truth.

Recently I was flipping around in a lot of books about other religions and came across this part in the front of a Quran:

“What need has Allah of a son? He is Holy and free from all weakness and defects, including the contingency of death. He needs not a son to take His place. Everyone and everything belongs to Him and is obedient to Him and under His control. That which belongs to Him cannot be His equal. That which is obedient to Him and is under His control cannot rebel against His authority. No one can, therefore, aspire to equality with Him, nor would He need a helper to subdue such an aspirant. He is the Originator of the heavens and earth; the sole Creator of the universe. He needed not a son to assist Him in the creation of the universe. Whatever He decrees is carried into effect. He needs no son to assist Him in the governance of the universe.”

When I was Iraq and made some friends there, religion was obviously brought up at points. I believe strongly in my faith and so too did my new friends in theirs. At one point, Luis (not his real name, but it’s his “American” name we gave him for his own protection) said Christianity and Islam are the same except for the view on Jesus. He says Jesus is just a man. I disagreed, of course, but I was not about to get into an argument over religion with a man I had to work with everyday. I simple said I disagreed and we left it at that.

When I read the previous passage from that Quran, it got me thinking about that conversation with Luis and how that is what he honestly believes. I thought about how I just could not succumb to the thought that Christ was not the Messiah. Then I thought about why. A few things came to mind.

First, the whole passage seems to give the impression that Allah (their word for God) does not care if we have the freewill to love. I kind of have this view that God is love. Love creates (think about it, when you’re truly in love with someone, you create a relationship, a child, a life together. Love creates). It seems only logical that Yahweh would create us out of love. In the Garden of Eden, Yahweh gave Adam and Eve only one rule: “do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Yahweh was giving them the chance to love Him back by being obedient. He did not force them; He gave them free will because without it, they would not be true bearers of the image of God. They needed to be loving creatures. Think about it: if you love someone, it means a whole lot more if they freely love you back. To have their love faked or forced really isn’t the same at all.

Second, the passage talks about God being in control and everyone and everything obeys His authority. Yes, if Yahweh wanted to make everything and one bend at His will, of course He could. He is God, the Creator of the entire universe; however, as it is clearly seen in the Bible, God is a God who will let His creation have their heart’s desires. He is like a parent and we’re His children. If we wanted to break ourselves trying to save ourselves, He let us. It seems we are a creation that often learns the hard way. Once we were a broken creation, Yahweh put in motion the works of our redemption and reconciliation with Him. He intervened when necessary but Yahweh still allowed us our free will.

Third, this kind of ties the first two together a bit. I just get the notion that the passage implies that love makes Yahweh weak. I feel like Yahweh can be powerful, authoritative, and able all the while loving perfectly. I believe that God does what He does out of love for His beloved creation.

Fourth, the passage says that God has no use of a son and that a man could not be His equal. A few things here stand out in my mind: First, I believe that Yahweh is the Godhead three in one. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one yet separate. It’s kind of crazy to think about but it is what I believe. In Genesis 1:1, the original Hebrew used the name “Elohim” for God. It is a plural form of “gods” but not in a numerical sense. Given the context of the passage it is in, it is indicated that it means ”godhead” or one God in different forms. Second, if Jesus is a part of the godhead, He is both fully man and fully God. He is God incarnate. He is not aspiring to be God’s equal, for He IS God in human form. Third, what use has God of a son? Sin is a human problem. It is not a problem that God has, but rather, that we have. Only a perfect human could make the atoning sacrifice necessary to overcome the wages of our sin. What better way than for God to have enough love and compassion for His creation to take on this task Himself? He came and walked among us. He breathed, bled, and wept just as all humanity has. He walked throughout the earth and not once sinned. He came and took our place so that we could finally be redeemed! Without that perfect Lamb, we stand no hope of seeing the face of God and serving Him for eternity. The Son was not a need of God’s; it was a need of ours. It was – is – our salvation.

This is just what I thought when I read that passage. Maybe I’m wrong. I really cannot say for sure. I just have faith that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of the Living God. I am not bashing Islam; I am simply (sort of) saying why I cannot believe Jesus is anything less than the Messiah. I serve a God who loved me enough to be crushed by the weight of my iniquities. If love makes me, or my Yahweh weak, -shrugs- so be it.

The battle over flesh and blood cannot compare to the battle for the heart.

Book Ponderings

I recently read the book Blue Like Jazz. If you haven't read it, it's a little bit like Shane Claiborne's The Irresistible Revolution. It's about a radical change in our thinking toward Christianity and what that looks like in the life of the author. While I don't agree with everything Don Miller wrote, his writing does warrant a little cognitive processing on my end. The rest of this post is predominately about the parts of his work I found made me stop and think a bit.

In the second chapter of Miller's book there's this part where Don recaps a conversation he had with his friend, Tony. They're discussing some of the horrid things going on in the Congo when Tony poses the question to Miller "Are you capable of murder or rape or any of the other stuff taking place over there?" After a bit of discussion, Miller finally says, "What you are really saying is that we have a sin nature, like the fundamentalist Christians say." That stood out to me.

This isn’t Miller’s final thought on this matter of our sinful natures, but just that posed question made me think – what do I think about our human nature as far as sin goes? Honestly, probably because I AM human, I wanted to think that maybe we aren’t bad, but that some people just “go bad”. But if we aren’t innately sinful, then why do we have to be taught to be good? I think it’s obvious if you look around that we, as humanity, are broken. There’s really no denying it. I love that we aren’t stuck there. We aren’t hopeless in such a lost and less than hopeful world.

As I continued to read, Miller stated something else that I’ve thought, but never really heard before – “I am the problem.” My first thought was “Am I?” Am I? I claim to be part of the body of Christ but how often am I His hands, His feet, His body? Probably not near enough. I, we, can blame the problems of this often horrible world on “them” and “they” but when will we as a whole of humanity change ourselves? It seems cliché to say, but Ghandi was on to something when he said, “be the change you want to see in the world” and C.S. Lewis too when he said:

“All this flashy rhetoric about loving you.

I never had a selfless thought since I was born.

I am mercenary and self-seeking through and through;

I want God, you, all friends, merely to serve my turn.

Peace, reassurance, pleasure, are the goals I seek,

I cannot crawl one inch outside my proper skin;

I talk of love – a scholar’s parrot may talk Greek –

But, self-imprisoned, always end where I begin.”

We can’t whine and blame fingers; instead we should step up however we can. We are the problem, but we can also be part of the solution. This world won’t be perfect, but with Christ in us, we can move in the right direction.

With all this thought about sin and problems, I have to wonder, “Were we ever suppose to be good?” There’s just so much broken in this world that it hardly seems likely. But I look to my Bible and I’m certain we were. God made us in His image and He said that we were good. He was pleased with us. But we are easily tempted, as we saw with Adam and Eve. We found ourselves broken in the garden and then removed from its beauty. I flipped around in my Bible some more, saddened that we just seem so broken. I found myself reading about Christ. I know He came to redeem us and reconcile us to God, but what does that mean for us now until He returns again? I looked at Paul of Tarsus. He was a horrible man who persecuted Christians. He thought he was right, but after an encounter with God, he realized he was part of the problem with the world. He wanted to be as God intended him to be. He became a fierce warrior in the name of Christ. What I’m trying to say with this bit about Paul is that with Christ, the good in us can shine through. We weren’t meant to be broken but the mark of sin has left us this way. God offers an alternative.

Basically, that’s what I thought about while I read the second chapter of the book. Besides this theme of sin in the book, there’s also a bit about love, which I suppose you’d expect in Christian literature. Something Miller said of interest to me was that “we do what we love to do.” That beget the obvious questions “what do I do?” and “what do I say I love?” I SAY I love Christ and His people and I SAY I want to give my life to that, but does what I DO even remotely support that? The more I thought about it the more I realized how selfish I really am. Ever since I got back to America, I’ve had this subtle attitude that this place owed me something. I’ve not be frivolous with my money or anything crazy, but rather, I’ve acted under the assumption that I should have a comfortable, easy life, which is contrary to everything I claim to believe. I SAY I love people but lately it seems I only love myself, and not in a humble good way.

Miller said something else that I’ve felt the weight of quite a bit lately – “we have trouble living within a system where no one owes anybody anything.” I read that and just started thinking about how true it is. So many of us hate the idea of someone doing something for us that we cannot repay. We feel we owe them, even if they insist the opposite. It made me think of my relationship with Christ. Why do I have so much trouble accepting His love, mercy, and forgiveness? I want to do it myself. I don’t want to need Him. I easily recognize my need for Him, but I don’t WANT to need him. I’m a really prideful person and I don’t want to need help from anyone for anything. It just feels so… wrong. It feels wrong to accept Christ’s death on the cross because I know it was for me. He died so I didn’t have to and, while I’m incredibly thankful I don’t have to, I have this subconscious need to prove I can save myself. I think it would be incredible if we could live in a system where no one owed anyone anything and just accept it.

A final thing Miller wrote was “the thing about Tom Toppins (who this is isn’t relevant) is that he really believed things. He wasn’t swayed.” I’ve thought about this before too. How unbelievable would our Christian family be if we weren’t swayed by what others wanted us to be, if we truly believed what we say we do?! It’d be magnificent. I think this generation is bringing this to life in a lot of ways (though that could just be within the sphere of Christians I know). I’ve seen so many young Christians step up and be the body of Christ even when it costs them greatly. It blows my mind, but then I remember, they believe the things they say they do and with passion they walk with Christ, unmoving. It makes me reconsider my walk with Christ. There have been times I’ve stood up and been unmoving in what I believe; times when I would follow Christ wherever He went. But where is that currently? It’s wrapped up in my selfishness. Pray for my heart.

Don Miller’s Blue Like Jazz was an interesting read. I didn’t agree with all of it but what did stand out to me really made me take a look at the life with Christ I’ve been living. It made me start thinking about how serious and beautiful a relationship with Christ really is. God uses all sorts of things to open our blind eyes and heal our souls. He’s a great God and Father.

Yahweh,

I miss You. I don't know how to find You again though. The nightmares are back and really bad. I'm not sure why they're back. It's such a fight for me to leave my own house. I just never really want to. It's safer here. Unless it's nighttime - then nothing feels safe except driving. As long as I'm on the run, I can't be hurt. But when I'm stagnate, my chest swells with fear at every shadow and every noise. Is it strange that at night I feel safer outside in darkness than in my own bed? Probably.

I can't do emotions or much logical thought lately. It's just too much. I can't be empathetic, sympathetic, or anything else. I care, so I'm not apathetic, but I just... can't be anything to anyone. Maybe that makes me selfish or something but I'm just empty inside. Empty and broken. And I'm not even sure I have all the pieces, or strength, to put me back together. I suppose You could though. So will You? Will You put me back together? Will You pull me back up to my feet? Without You, my life is really meaningless anyway. Help me?

Sincerely,

A desolate daughter

Late night thinking about a book

Today I read the book A Clockwork Orange. The ultimate themes running through this book are freewill and whether or not it is ethical to force good upon someone, no matter how psychotic the individual may be. This got me thinking:

What does God want? Does He want goodness, or the choice of it?

Is a man who chooses bad perhaps, in some ways, better than a man who has good imposed upon him?

And of course, is it ethical, aside from my Christian world view, to take away someone's right to choose between right and wrong?

To the first question, I looked to Biblical sources. In Genesis 2:16-17, after God had made man, he gave Adam but one rule. He said "You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die." It seems like here is where God establishes mans free will to choose good and bad. He gives them the chance to choose.

However, while I'm a firm believer than we are given free will, I find there are times when God must step in for us because we, as a whole of humanity, are not capable of escaping sin on our own. For example, in Genesis 6:5-7 "When the Lord saw that man's wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every scheme his mind thought of was nothing but evil all the time, the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. Then the Lord said, 'I will wipe off the face of the earth: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky - for I regret that I made them.'"

So on the one hand, God seems to want us to have the choice of goodness, shown by the first example. On the other hand, God seems to want just our goodness, shown by the second example. This second example begets the question, in my mind, how deep are we talking with goodness here? There's good deeds and righteous acts, but there's also the state of the heart. I think that's what He's getting at.

The people of the second example had corrupt hearts with no desire for what was righteous, pure, and holy, much like our character, Alex, from the aforementioned book. Just as God desired our goodness, so too did the State of which Alex was in custody. I think the key to going about seeking that goodness lies in the motivation of the heart. In God's case, His motivation was ultimately love. He was beside Himself with grief over His decayed creation. He knew what would be best in bringing about the ultimate redemption for His Bride. He was looking to the future and had best interests at heart for those past, present, and future. In Alex's situation, Dr. Brodsky admits that he cares not for the boy's reformation and well-being as much as he cares about freeing up prison space and lowering crime rates. The motivation behind his method of seeking goodness from Alex is entirely selfish.

To basically sum up my answer to the first question, I think God wants us to have the choice to choose between good and bad; however, I also think that He will go through great lengths to save us from ourselves out of pure love and mercy. This is subject to change as I ponder it more, but for now, this is where I stand.

To the second question (Is a man who chooses bad perhaps, in some ways, better than a man who has good imposed upon him?), maybe it's not a question of who is better. Is a man defined as good or bad based on their ability to choose? No! They are defined based, not on the ability, but rather the choice itself. Furthermore, another questions needs to be asked: was there a point in which the second man of this question gave consent to having good imposed upon him? I think that's a defining question in and of itself. For example, in the text, Alex is brought up to speed about his selection to be a study for the experimental Ludovico Technique. Afterwards, he is asked to sign waivers, giving his consent to the procedure. In my mind, Alex gave up his future right to choose between right and wrong in that moment. The consequences on the procedure are ultimately what Alex chose to have happen. He chose to have good imposed upon him and even still his motives were deceitful for he was promised release from prison in a fortnight, rather than serve the full 14 years. Aside from choice and back to the question at hand, is one better than the other, perhaps the motive behind the ones imposing good upon another is important. When God imposed good, it was loving; when Dr. Brodsky did it, it was selfishness and the need to be recognized as having done something worthwhile.

Perhaps, though, none of that really even matters. In this day and age, a majority of Westerners abhor the idea of their free will being even remotely sabotaged. From that mindset, I'm almost certain the man who has the choice to choose bad will be seen as the better of the two; however, from my own personal view, I see neither as better than the other and motive to be of equally a valid concern to the question.

To the final question (is it ethical, aside from my Christian world view, to take away someone's right to choose between right and wrong?), let's look at what happened in the book. Alex was a brutal young boy of only 16. He beat, raped, murdered, and stole, among numerous other things, and he felt absolutely nothing but pure joy out of doing so. He didn't care for ethics and morality, he just did whatever he felt like doing to bring him that rush he desired. Typically, as a society, we immensely hinder a person's ability to choose by placing them in prisons when they commit great offenses on society. But there are those, like Alex, who spend that prison sentence simply biding their time until they can be free to choose to do evil once again. It was made very clear that was what Alex wanted, and was even the sole purpose for his choosing to have good imposed on him. With individuals such as that, who are legitimately psychotic at their very core, is it ethical to take away their right to choose between right and wrong? Honestly, apart from my world view, I can't see a reason why not. It would be in the best interest of the greater good and, in extreme cases such as Alex's, it could keep many people from being hurt and tortured. However, still apart from my Christian world view, I would not see it being very ethical to impose goodness upon those who are of no harm to the greater good. That would eventually breed a type of dystopian world, as is portrayed in A Clockwork Orange, which would in turn be horrible for the greater good.