John Calvin, The Oil Tycoon, "PWNING" as the Life of the Party! Giving us the BULL market and enDOWing us to Heaven's Gates!!

In the first part of this apprehension of TULIP we heard an unbelievable crash-and-burn tale about a lawyer who discovered the secrets of fate which would permit a stampede into heaven such as has never before been seen. We heard how the yarmulke-bulbed TULIP hat-wearers sprouted mightily into heaven. They entered through the chambers of the throne room of heaven, causing a great curiosity and awkward silence, like that which is common in western movies when some cocksure new cowboy enters a town. They didn't think about what their place in that throne room might be. They had a Kramer-like entrance, slamming the door to that heavenly taproom disregardingly wide and clipping the wings of a few neighborly cherubim who happened to be standing in that wake-not exactly how things are usually done round them parts.

Naturally, these yarmulke wearing TULIP heads had an imbalanced swagger caused by the weight of their heavy bulbed kopfs. This gave them quite the gaping step, which they did not fail to exercise when they elected to thoroughly stumble through that place, causing no small fuss. They marched so greatly, in fact, and with perseverance upon perseverance, that they did something quite unanticipated by those observing: the TULIPs passed the throne of the Almighty! Eventually they persevered so far that they fell off the face of heaven seemingly back down to the realm of earth for us where it is now, to the great relief of the heavenly township, for us to deal with. Whether we should choose to deal with anything about it or not is for us to decide. It is normally the case that the wise thing to do in the situation of a runaway train is to stand aside, but I don't feel that will do. Like the kids in J.J. Abram's movie, Super 8, I think it might be for the best if we allow our curiosity a bit of walking room here. If we're not willing to consider it in a way in which we have not before, if we remain adamant to maintain fixed notions and feelings about it, and if we allow no place for scrutinous inquiries, it would be difficult to say that we could have honored the fuss of it all.

There is a fuss over TULIP. Wherever it came from, whatever it can do, and whatever it is here for, it is my intention to apprehend a few things about it, to see how it holds under the scrutiny of this particular pirate perspective, called by some, the perspective of me or mine. It is really the perspective of me and not the perspective of mine, because if it were mine than it would be for me to possess this perspective for myself, alone, and away from others, if I should choose; but I am glad that it is merely the perspective of me, and not the perspective of mine, for I can take myself more lightly, as I prefer. For I adamantly despise the possibility that our existence could now be refined to a mere game of self-posession and facebook existences. It seems our digital-age commonwealth increasingly values vanities by clicks of "likes", which we are all too concerned to vie over and compare ourselves by ourselves with. If there could be a pirate's chance of enrichment in these writings here, tending toward some true or good thing, than God forbid that it would but be for all, and tend not toward a vain self-obsession or self-servingness to be called mine. I just want to see the feet of people hitting the ground again, and I want to see them enjoy things together for once, without someone feeling trespassed against. I think I'd rather die than commit my life to convincing people that they should be groveling at my poor way of saying things.

I'm talking about our culture and its effect on us. There is an increasingly gloomy reality nowadays in which things are said and done in our individualistic, capitalist society for the sake of ourselves, for the extension of our own sense of ownership over things and people, and for a sense of the furtherance of our own preeminence. We possess an unfriendly, competitive self-obssession, which seeks to prove our own importance by highlighting it over others. Evidence of this is seen by the fact that we have a common phrase now, "you just got owned", which is being used by the culture at large, and perhaps even more telling of the kind of society we live in now is the more computerized version of the word: "pwned", which is used in online gaming culture but coming soon to a home near you!

What happened to our culture? Well, this crazed obsession with personal ownership really all started when the Puritans fell in love with the way Calvin said things. They thought it would be good to prove that they were "elect" and destined for salvation, by a combination of their work ethic and colorless insistency on thrift. They chose not to spend money on any goods that could be construed as "luxury", and so all of their money ended up sitting in barns. One day they saw fit that it should not just remain sitting in barns, but instead should be used to be buying more barns! They thought the money should be committed to the obtainment of capital investments for capital investment's sake. The Puritans stopped spending and started "pwning" things. All of this is detailed in Max Weber's work, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism". Now since people can sometimes hear what I'm not saying let me clarify: it is my belief that ownership is a God-ordained and good thing; however, an obsession over ownership and an obsession over one's self as it relates to owning -these are things usually called avarice and pride.

That is the common danger and temptation for us in our "pwning" society, and it bleeds into how we think about religion. An over-concern with owning ideas makes us really ambitious with ideas and beliefs like TULIP. That's what this is about really. We fight to have excessive control and undue credit as though our understandings, how we say things, etc., gives us the right to reign over religious ideas like gods, but really we don't have godship over ideas, we have stewardship.

Calvinism is somewhat of a shame because it enslaves mankind to the false pretense that a few systematized corporate elite called the "elect" have godship over ideas, and it has somehow become their impression that it is their manifest destiny to apprehend everyone to the same narrow, thirsty deserts where Calvin's oil (his own personal, dry, cold, and unlovely way of garbling out unfathomable ideas about things like fate) can drip onto their heads like a special spiritual anointment, an anointment which is much more pleasing to the Lord than all other spiritual anointments, an efficient, industrial presentation of God sometimes called "systematic theology". It is the hope of the Calvinists that their sheik, Calvin, has already secured the development of them by the way he has said things to the masses, all Calvinists in the world, on their helpless third-world cliffs and countrysides of their fallenness. They trust his words as those of a great industrial statesman and not as those of a robber baron. They believe Calvin's american oil deal is going to actually end up helping local situations in the community of their heart and soul much more than any other way or process people could have done things in faith, like for instance, if they did some things like expressing their beliefs for themselves. That was one of the ideas originally, wasn't it? Wasn't it supposed to be a free religious world now, where people could read the Bible for themselves? But somehow it turned into a corporate battle for the "pwnership" and control of ideas between two giants: the papal state vs. geneva. Hey, go ahead and believe that a full commitment to his oil plan will help you much more than it takes from you if you would like. It's still your choice. But it's somewhat sad to consider all that is lost by selling out to Calvin by becoming a shareholder solely in the intellectual property of his words and stock. If one chooses this way at least be prepared to be disappointed, for letting Calvin own in the religious realm and forgetting that he's a man, which simply cannot own in that realm, one will do themselves no favors but set themselves up for disappointment.

All good business deals happen over the dinner table. Calvin wasn't exactly friendly to acknowledge the good in other views not his own, which to me, is a sort of stubbornness or arrogance that ought to flag some suspicion. He seems too self-assured and polemical of other views that I think it would have been quite awkward to have a drink with him privately or in a group out to eat, because he just couldn't have laid it to rest until his simple story or perspective was praised above all others at the table. While an average, common man would look across the table searching for another set of common eyes, to get some nonverbal consent, saying to each other that they both recognize how out of place this man's confidence is, and how awkward his own appreciation for his own way of saying things is. They would quickly know, for they have seen this kind of thing before, where a person misjudges a distance on a jump really out of reach, or a miner digs too deep and things begin to cave in on himself, etc., they know how really limited and unfantastical a man's understanding of fate can be. Calvin's radiant speech would seem to them flatter than a day old dark beer, a bit gloomy perhaps, and quite void of that hoppiness and bloominess you'd expect in someone talking of summer shandy's and budding flowers.

We're talking about a flower-ish theological acronym here which is sometimes apprehended (understood) to be Calvin's. It is a sort of impression going around today which is ferverously head-long, and so it has, not surprisingly, become darn near feverish, I'm afraid. I set out on this writing intending to make entirely different points about it, but I think these points suffice. My ambition is not to "pwn" it here. It is quite the opposite point: Calvin, or any man, does not have ownership over religious ideas and things like fate. He did not enter hell and wrestle the keys from the devil so that we could have a proper doctrine of fate, who was so menacingly keeping a correct notion of fate from us. Quite the opposite could be guessed to be the case. For their is no reason to suspect that a thing taken out of the devil's hands could end up causing such a confusing mess and derision. There's really no reason to be obsessed with the way that the lawyer says things, anymore than you would the butcher, the clerk, or the postman - who all know a thing or two as well. I guess it shouldn't be surprising though if a lawyer could write something in such an enthralling way that it begins to appear that he has ownership over it. Isn't that their job?

"Everybody has something to bring to the party," that's what a friend of mine said to me recently at a coffee shop when I was right in the middle of putting myself down. I had tried to say that I am a naturally quiet and a slow-speaker apart from my caffeine intake, but she cut me off. I'm glad she did. In a sense, she reminded me by her rebuke that I do not have value for "being the party". That is an insanely ambitious expectation for what I could as an individual say or bring. For merely being a part of the party with the little that I do, the odd comment here and there-that is my value. In the same way, Calvin, the lawyer, provides us a way of possibly thinking about God in part, but to highlight him or his sayings as the "party" is to take away from the partyness of parties. Every great party is the rallying of an appreciation of the diversity of all of its parts. All great parties beautifully display their people as special parts, wonderfully made creatures, images, shadows of the likeness of God. The extensiveness and wonderfulness of God was demonstrated to us only fully in Christ, and now we are proscribed to feast in recognition of this, a great banquet calling all kinds of people far and wide, not to eat of the bread of the flower that Calvin will give us, but to eat of Christ's body and blood.

Apprehending TULIP

I find it untelling and even somewhat boring when I hear the Calvinist acronym "TULIP". If you're unfamiliar with it just imagine that a lawyer once happened to get his hands on some divine secrets surrounding fate, and that he attempted to explain these things, previously thought to be reserved for everlasting sonnets, in his own succinct, technical, and drab way, a way which would prove once and for all to be the ultimate consummation of pure speech and orthodoxy. It is a thing quite strange that the most glorious questions of existence could be reduced to fit on something so small as a greeting card, but so it was; and in this way, the heart and longing of mankind was unleashed to blossom in a way never before conceived, all from a tiny seed of pedantic reduction. Thanks to the careful wording of the lawyer, mankind would never have to think about the settling of all things again, for the question of fate and the divine was settled by one man with five strokes of the pen in the Great and Glorious Cliche.

By repeating it the way the lawyer said it, mankind conjured for itself a wonderful confidence. They planted TULIP in their hearts and minds so deep that one day it sprouted them all the way to the realm of heaven, like Jack the Giant Slayer did his beans. All was peaceful outside of the chambers where frighteningly-beautiful ancient creatures fall prostrate day in and day out before the ineffable wonders of the Almighty, but not on this particular day. CRASH!!! Somehow a tumultuous presence had entered the realm. Naturally, all the angels were perplexed, but they didn't have time to think about it really for as quickly as it began it continued.

The door to the throne room flew open and in burst the lords of understanding wearing their TULIP yarmulkes. They didn't hesitate to start, though no one quite knew who they were, where they were starting off to, or really what they were doing there in that place in the first place. Needless to say, they drew some curiousity, so much so that the jasper and sardius stones would have cried out to ask them a question had they not so quickly elected to march unconditionally forward. They started off immediately. They brushed past the cherubim laying prostrate on the ground, patting them like children on the head as they went. "Duck, duck, goose. Duck, Duck, goose," they said. But nobody moved or got up. "My, oh my, these mighty-looking creatures are so obviously simple minded," they said confidently, "For if they hadn't been, the naturalness of the flora of our statements and general disposition would inspire them to rise and go forward as we do, but instead they lay there sillily humbled on the floor like blankets."

Inoculated by the smell of their words and their soundness, the TULIP yamrulkes marched on. They marched confidently, noses high, and persevering very much; so much so, in fact, that to the astonishment of all, they passed all the mighty beings laying prostrate, and all of the humble, bedazzling harp players, musicians, and choruses on either side. But then every moving thing stopped-all the thunder, lightning, music and voices-and a great awkward silence fell on that place such as heaven had never before known, for these lovers of the lawyers words had walked so far that they passed the throne where sat the Almighty! All eyes were fixated with mouth agape. Someone almost said something but they were just as soon out of ear reach, and all were struck quite speechless. Even if they had been closer, the soundness of their own flowery sounds would have likely drowned out all other calls to them. So the stampede kept going and going, continuing in their perseverance, becoming smaller and smaller things in the distance, further and further--until suddenly, they vanished from the horizon. They had apparently persevered to a point of severance. It would seem they just fell off somewhere. It was really quite a thing.

Back in the heavenly chambers the angelic beings wondered to themselves how it ever was that such unrelentless reveries in ambition and pride could have entered into that place. It was a strange interruption, like the fly-by-night of a crazed bird slipping into and out of a kitchen. They started refering to it as, "the apprehension of TULIP".

Unfortunately for us, that crazed bird fell down to earth where we are now left to deal with it, so we shall try. I have only a few things to say about it really. I think you will find them predictably unorthodox (I prefer the term heterodox), but its best to leave it for another post soon. I don't want to give too much candy or people's teeth might rot out. Maybe I'll give you just one more piece of candy.

I'm having a hard enough time at the moment trying to figure out if I'm a Catholic who is secretly a closet Calvinist, or if I'm a Calvinist who is secretly a closet Catholic. Its a joke that I laugh at which I haven't yet decided is real or not. If it is real, just think of the implications of looking for a mate with that kind of problem. I've begun wondering about it because I've started to notice my habits recently. You see, I start my mornings off as a sort of strict-nosed Calvinist with an intense protestant and capitalist work ethic, but slowly I drift to a different mode. I start reading a little bit of G.K. Chesterton, add some sacred choral music along the way, and eventually end up by nighttime a full on mystic, lighting candles, wearing fifteen rosaries, dark hooded clothes, etc.. It comes full circle when a thought occurs to me, "Wait, what am I doing? My worst fear is to be a solitary monk. Something about this just isn't right. I actually do like some rowdiness and knee-slapping once in a while," so I go to Applebee's with some friends, and the whole process starts over again in the morning, because you need money for that kind of thing. But then again, you also need money for candles ;).

I'm not the only one with thoughts about this. Check out what Judah has to say! We've kind of got an ongoing little mini-series here about this kind of thing:

http://judahpowers.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-depravity-of-total-depravity-and.html

George Orwell's Boring Idea of Piety: Swinish, Deacon-Scare Ruminations from a Ding-Dong-Ditcher

I'm about to share a quote that caught my attention. I want to write about it but I also want to take the opportunity here to call out other people to also write about it, either the quote itself or if you prefer, you can even rip into the points that I'm making, attempting to berate them, clarify them, or purify them from the defiling touch of my decrepit pirate-deacon hands. I specifically want to invite Spaceman and Talon Shepherd because I'm touching on a few things that we have to sum degree talked about and brainstormed about already in common.

Here's what George Orwell, famous author of the book "Nineteen Eighty-Four" said which provoked me: "It seems rather mean to go to HC [Holy Communion] when one doesn't believe, but I have passed myself off for pious & there is nothing for it but to keep up with the deception." - George Orwell

My first impression of the quote is that it sounds like something that one of our contemporaries would say, the comedian-actor, Russell Brand. It sounds like it was meant, perhaps, for nothing more than a laugh; however, I think it cleverly draws attention to an important facet of human nature which threatens us all. That's why I like it. That's not to say I like it, that is to say, the substance of it, but I do enjoy the awakening and the stirring that it brings as it is offered. It provokes people to a point of becoming agitated, in order to get them to think. Why do we really do the things we do? At least that is what I perceive the purpose of Orwell is here. This quote highlights that it is a grievous attack and denial of one's own human nature when a person decides to be apathetic or half-hearted in concern over doing the right thing, especially when it relates to them personally, because there really is something to it; similarly, there is no compelling reason for one to glory in having settled for what one perceives to be a deception, because it is obviously the case that we live in a world of real purpose, a teleological world, and since the acceptance of a known deception is a blatant denial of the purpose and end of reason, along with being a surprising and counter-intuitive denial of the sanctity of man's natural propensity to explore creation with the senses, this quote is meant to spur us on to being awake; it is a dark, descending, devolution into the animal kingdom when one denies, like this quote does, their own will to proactively choose and conclude things and to believe things, and so this quote highlights an attack on human nature - the threat of being half-human, to be alive but not really living.

When I first read this quote it immediately reminded me of one of the themes some friends and I have recently been brainstorming about in an attempt we are making to depict an idea by way of group art. I can't remember who had mentioned the idea, I think it was Spaceman, but we were all thinking about it in our own different ways, not all that concretely. Our theme was that sometimes people become devoted to unfulfilling commitments to unfulfilling things, and this tends to shrink their souls a bit; yet somehow people decide, in human weakness, to keep-on-keeping-on in a kind of mediocrity and unfulfilled boredom. Perhaps people do this because they simply don't know of or can't imagine any real alternative that could fare them well situationally, relationally, spiritually, etc. -whatever state of realm it may be that they are in which is negatively oppressing and perplexing them.

But, although we can find any number of means to excuse it, it seems like Orwell in this quote is comfortable with promulgating mass boredom, which is obviously a sort of pseudo-humanity as every child knows; its being content to be alive but not to really live. It seems like Orwell is comfortable to know and perceive purpose, but to stop there; to look at an apple, and think it not worth tasting. He seems to be apathetic to exploring with any depth what it would mean for a person to exemplify a real piety.

Only a sleepwalker decides like that. They feign life walking into rooms aimlessly, looking at walls like they are pictures and pictures like they are walls. Sleepwalking is outcasting a conscious human will to recess. Saying, like Orwell has said, 'that piety is a thing that is merely intended to be passed off for a deception', which feels like a statement that a sleepwalker would make right before he resolves on the pig chambers as his resting place at the end of an aimless wandering in the dark. "Nothing for it but to settle for a pig sty." This is something that can be funny, but only funny, because everyone experiences that pig stys are nasty places.

Eyes are made to see, and Orwell's eyes are seemingly open; but eyes are also made to perceive, and his are not really. Perception has to do with depth, to acknowledge that there is an up and down, that things have places and that we have places in a real, multi-dimensional 3D world. Orwell is quite content as it relates to the practice of taking communion to settle for doing it in a merely 2D ceremonial kind of way. He says, 'there's nothing in the practice of communion, it is the deception of piety-this is where its at!'

He admits in the first part of his statement (which he seems to have forgotten about immediately after writing) that it seems "mean" to be partaking in communion when you don't believe', which is like saying that, 'it feels like the world is 3D', but it is strange because of what he follows that with. He essentially says, 'I'm comfortable and fine with living a 2D life, and having a 2D philosophical take on life,' which is an immensely unadventurous, risk-averse, and boring attitude to have about it. Its like going to a theme park and deciding to just ride the toddlers quarter pony machine. This spirit is antithetical to what Christ was about, that is, to live a half full life, which does not care to take seeking seriously and does not care to dream finding rewarding.

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." - John 10:10

As Christians we don't have to shy away from the reality of things that seem "mean", but we can begin to explore what meanness is about, and assume that there really is something important about the fact that we are pre-inclined to have moral feelings about things. We can assume the sanctity of creation, and our place in it as dignified human beings exercising moral wills. We don't have to cowardly shy away from the natural qualities and propensities we have as creatures made in the image of God. We get to exercise our humanity, taking care of what appears to be our lot, making good use of our rational and moral faculties to make judgments and have feelings. We get to assume that life means something, that we are intended for something, that it is interesting, that it is of vital concern to concern ourselves in sobriety with what we have been given: the gift of life. We really can legitimately trust and acknowledge the common sense of the real 3D world which is constantly speaking in our ear that things do matter, that we do matter, that choices matter, etc..

This is what led pre-evolutionary scientists to discover most of the greatest modern discoveries in the real world, their assumption that there is purpose in all things. There is a humungous inference that follows from this: that things ought to be and were intended to be discovered and explored through the implementation of active and spirited curiosity (Acts 17:27 comes to mind). It seemed to them, that is the classical scientists, that we live in a world of real, objective purpose. It seemed to them appropriate to take a non-sleepwalker attitude, to take care to purposefully care about things in an exercise of the will, which includes, to our particular interest here, actually taking care to think about this thing we call piety, etc.. It was the engine of the human heart married with intellect, what Thorstein Veblen calls an, "idle curiosity", and what G.K. Chesterton calls "wonder" that propelled the pre-evolutionary scientists to seek out the riches of the abundance of life. They possessed the realism of a child, a realism which easily and naturally believes that purpose is sanctified, that it is real, and that it is a given.

We must be brave because we are under divine mandate to see light, because it is for our good to enjoy light and to propagate light. Christ said, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have life more abundantly." That's hopeful. That's expansive. Perceiving this makes piety possible, relevant, and enjoyable. Don't settle for a tired, ephemeral, sleep-walker's take on piety, instead be encouraged to spiritedly explore religious realities with this admonition, " Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you." - Matthew 7:7

A person who knocks on the door of the house of Piety and then decides to up and walk away without caring to see if anyone might come to the door and to wonder who might come? Is just a disillusioned old man captivated by the deceitfulness of youthful passions, holding onto a false security that a 2D triviality of adolescence will fulfill him, finding it eternally funny to ding-dong-ditch houses, inconveniencing everyone with carelessness in excess. 

The "Why is Farting Funny?" Theological Argument

Introduction


So I'm going to clarify the "Farting is Funny" point for people who wanted to know what that was all about Tuesday night at the "Does God Exist" forum put on by the Longview Bible study group. The point seemed to cause a lot of fuss and it seems to have been largely misunderstood. In the room while I was speaking I was simultaneously being booed and cheered. The weird part is that it was across the aisle booing and cheering. I was being booed by Christians and atheists and also cheered by Christians and atheists. I'm fairly certain that the reason for this is merely that I am an artist. Regardless, I feel like I have a fairly good argument here and so I wanted to post it again for the people who were there that wanted clarity but I also wanted to post it on the blog to see what other people might think about it. If you weren't there Tuesday night, that's fine, I'm going to sum up everything you need to know about the argument. For those of you who were there, what I said was actually a series of points-which is why I think people might have missed what I was really saying. In a point that is developed in a series, if one forgets a part of the flow of that series it has the potential to deconstruct the whole thing, like a house which loses one of its support beams has the potential to cause the whole structure to collapse. Some only got half the point I was making because they remember only half of the series of things that I said. Other people might have actually been offended by the things I said because the things I said were connected by abstraction, as all good artful arguments are from people of artful personalities. When I ask rhetorically, "Why is farting funny?" I am saying something like this to abstract an idea. I'll offer a brief apology (meaning defense) of who I am and what I do which hopefully should give some understanding and framework for what I'm about to again offer. Everyone wants to kill the artist. It's a historical trend.


"Abstractions may be formed by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose."

How I tend to think is: "This is like this is like this". I run into trouble with hard line traditionalist thinkers at church because they are focused on protecting what is "right" whereas I tend to be more focused on what is "like" in order to paint and arrive at what is "right". I am perceived to often be making points that seem unrelated but I actually make unique points which, if people have patience to understand them, are in fact very relevant and are not, in fact, being said merely out of a careless and flippant comedic spirit-which is often how I am first perceived to be by people who are unfamiliar with artists like me, an artist who has been encouraged by supportive friends and family to speak his mind.


As an artist type personality I tend to paint a picture or tell a story in order to make my point. I don't generally say my point in its most basic, logical dry bones form. Artists break conventional rules and structure, which to traditionalists can feel threatening and offensive, but artists are necessary creatures because they keep us sane. Artists in some ways know rules the best, that is why comedians are able to be funny. They have well placed jabs at the refineries of how people act; they can poke at the thoughtlessness of some traditional norms in society and point out the things that we hold to unthoughtfully or inconsistently. This makes us laugh.
Now in the "Does God Exist" forum there were many math and science people who spoke out, but I spoke out as the artist because I felt the conversation was imbalanced. It is important for all different kinds of people to have input because that way you get the best chance of more complete perspective. The artist in me wanted to poke at Einstein a bit to show that he was actually making a mistake.


I will provide the needed context of the night and reiterate all of the relevant points that I think are necessary to understand my argument in a second but then I will recreate starting again with what I started with on Tuesday night, the first part of my series of arguments, a point about economics and GDP. Once I have that I will begin again to build on it as artists do in an attempt to reconstruct my argument. Keep in mind this is all to make a serious point and criticism of Einstein with how he seemed to approach the question, the question that we were concerned with at the forum, "Does God Exist". Einstein can seem like such a daunting Titan especially to the imbalanced intellectualism of mathematicians and scienticians, but don't worry because the artists have the key to unlocking Einstein's mistake; the key is to fart in his face.


What a Controversial Statement, Now Time for the Actual Argument:


As is relevant to our purpose here, there was at the beginning of the night a point made about economics and correlation. Ed was building what I think is a good case, that if you get enough dots correlating and seeming to point toward a certain direction along a line through regression you have a good probabilistic case built. You can put your faith in whatever the relationship is being suggested by the correlation of the variables. In this case Ed was making the point that it is reasonable to believe that God exists because that is what the mathematical variables, the evidences, I think there were 38 of them, seem to imply. But being that I am an artist I was naturally bored with the point being made (nothing wrong with the point) and so I took to tearing it down and painting with it.


The Qualitative Aspect of Life is a Serious Matter


Since the particular relationship that was used as an example was an economic relationship between GDP and unemployment, something that I am familiar with because I majored in economics, I was immediately able to conjure up from memory a heterodox critique of GDP as a measure of societal well-being. GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, is the total money value of all goods and services produced in an economy in a year. It has an indirect relationship with the unemployment rate. To put this in laymen's terms, as the unemployment rate increases, the output of the economy shrinks. Ed's point was that there is a definite correlation between the unemployment rate and GDP. Mainstream economists generally see a shrinking economy as a negative thing because the orthodoxy of utilitarianist capitalism is that the more stuff we have the better off society is. This is a wrong, oversimplified, and overly mathematical approach to measuring the well being of society. More stuff being produced does not say anything about how that stuff is being distributed. It could be that a couple of fat cats are hoarding those goods and services produced in our booming economy, but that the rest of society is in slave labor. Slave economies can look great on paper if one's measure of greatness is purely mathematical, a high GDP. Another criticism of more stuff being the ideal that is always good for society is that more stuff is not necessarily better stuff. We have tons of crappy fast food restraunts that keep our economy booming but that destroy our health and enable us to live "workaholic" lives - efficient but anti-relational lives. When we don't sit down to eat as a family there is more opportunity for an epidemic of loneliness, which is exactly what we see when we ignore the qualitative aspect of life in favor of the quantitative, when we become "lovers of money" as scripture warns against. This leads to a whole range of other problems in society in schools, churches, etc.. I have just completed the first part of the series of points that I made on Tuesday. Now I started with this point of criticism against mathematical economics in order to abstract something fairly simple out, that there is a qualitative/quantitative aspect of life that we need to take seriously.


Introduction to Einstein


According to our speaker, Ed, in his corroborative probabilistic case that favored belief in the existence of God, we were informed about Albert Einstein and his cosmological constant. Eisntein originally had assumed that the universe was neither expanding or contracting in his General Theory of Relativity, but it turns out that it was later discovered by Hubble that the universe is in fact expanding. When Einstein discovered this it seemed to demonstrate to him that the universe had a definite beginning from which everything then expanded. This seemed to imply for Einstein that God or some supernatural thing created the universe. He had up to this point been unpersuaded but now he was willing to reconsider the existence of God. He called in a panel of people including a priest, a reformed theologian, and a few other religious figures to talk about the question of God's existence. It seemed for Einstein that God, if he exists, was either not wholly good and therefore perhaps the supernatural consisted of two entities or more; or that God was not wholly powerful, because if he was he would be able to deal with evil.


As the point was being made that there is a universal constant rate at which the universe expands I, as an artist, naturally wanted to create with that information. I began wondering at what rate does the universe expand? I then wanted to ask a qualitative question, "does it expand like the tortoise or does it expand like the hare?" (Here I was merely abstracting a qualitative concern). I then asked the question, which is the kind of question that also hung Einstein up, "does it expand like an angel or does it expand like a demon?" (Here I am abstracting a particular qualitative category: good/evil).


My Criticism of Einstein


The qualitative aspect of life is not something that Einstein considered very deeply. Einstein knew the aspect of life that can be quantified, perhaps it could be said, like no other man before in history knew; but the qualitative aspect of life is something that he quite missed in all of his quantitative contemplating. The more common man on Main Street contemplates the qualitative aspect of life because he doesn't have the education and gift and money to be able to withdraw to study rooms to contemplate the great quantitative questions of natural science like Einstein. But Einstein is the kind of guy, unlike the guy on Main Street, that misses the birth of his own child, who suffers from too much work and not enough relationship. Celebrities often have this problem. They can't live normal lives.


In Einstein's chamber of studies his face was solemn as he thought, withdrawn in the loneliness of his mind, about the quantitative conundrum of whether or not God exists. There were other people in the room with him that he had invited: the priest, the theologian, the rabbi, etc., but they were there for a particular purpose like a business exchange, an exchange of information, not for tea and crumpets and company. This is not what Einstein needed. He didn't know what he needed but he acted according to what he thought he needed to answer the question of whether or not God exists. Einstein needed something more like a hug; Einstein needed a valuing experience with his heart; Einstein needed something to qualitatively feel and evaluate. He needed the priest to fart in his face for heaven's sake! And he needed to see the reformed theologian laugh about it and the rabbi fall out of his chair from it. He needed to see the world as surprising.


The world in truth is surprising. It is surprising that farting should be funny and not sad. If there are no eternal things like God, or eternal things that only an almighty and all powerful God can secure like real justice and truth and joy, if life is just a short material existence followed by nothing, than farting is sad. Farting has to do with decay and waste and imperfection and so in a world in which there is no God or power or hope to defeat death, the only reasonable reaction to farting is sorrow. But in the real world farting is quite funny in almost any situation. It can be powerful to persuade mental and intellectual giants. Hot air rises for a reason. People are certainly supposed to contemplate what farting is about, especially the snooty and proud with their noses high.


If God is not real than farting would always be a reminder of death and it would be fearful and sad; but God is real and therefore material death is not the greatest kind of death, that is to say, material death - the thing that can be measured by an EKG. Death is not merely or primarily a quantitative thing, death is a qualitative thing. Similarly, this is also why Jesus is not merely or primarily a ticket to heaven, as atheists so often wrongly feel that we Christians feel, but Jesus is much better described as a Friend or Foe.


If I was one of the religious people in the room with Einstein I know what kind of thing I would ask him after I farted in his face. I would ask him, "What do you think life is really about, Einstein? Do you think it is about your heart rate, like the rate of your universal constant of expansion? Are you blind to the relational aspect and qualitative aspect of life, Einstein? Don't you know that your heart beats faster when you are with your loved one?"


More on the Topic of Life and Death as Qualitative:


One does not possess life like one possesses something that can be merely accounted, like one possesses money perhaps; one possesses death like one possesses a good joke or a bad joke, death is a qualitative state of being. Death to God is like sleeping (Mark 5:39).


"I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly." That is what Jesus said (John 10:10). When he is talking about life he is talking about it abounding qualitatively, not quantitatively. Do you think that Jesus meant to say that life consists in having the highest GDP? That life consists in the abundance of the things which man possesseth, that can be measured in barns? He says the exact opposite (Luke 12:15).

Farting is funny because the qualitative aspect of life is so serious. Einsteins should first get some caring friends and maybe even a couple of drinks also to open up their heart and ponder that. I think it would do good to balance their intellectualism with some common sense down to earth sensing. I wouldn't recommend doing the qualitative things that are like death, the deathly things like getting "plastered" or getting "wasted" because as the first implies a certain inanimate, material deadness like a wall without pictures, so also the second implies the picture, that which bears an image, and treating it like it is only inappreciable trash; trash and waste are those things like crap that are good for nothing except to be decomposed in the ground and eaten by worms. I'm speaking literally and qualitatively.


Consider the Qualitative


The religious question is not what variable will solve the equational problem of sin? The question is how can we like children gone astray, be returned to the Father of life? It is a question of disrelationship and restoration of relationship. That is why one needs to have an open mind and an open heart. One needs to be open to considering things from a relational point of view and not merely a data-like, graph-like point of view because one has to deal with values and not merely with facts. One has to be evaluative as to what is really important. What is really important about life is not merely that things operate in a mechanical way, that people's blood streams flow at at a rate that can be measured; but rather that their faces flush red when they are found embarrassed when they tell a lie, and that they flush pale as a white washed tomb with fear and shame when they are found naked.

Life is not merely quantitative; it is sacred or in other words, qualitative. This question of "Does God Exist" is not primarily a question of math and science; this is a question of value and life and death. Don't be deceived with Einstein into thinking that God is primarily and often found in a merely quantitative exercise of mental facts and trivia, have someone fart in your face instead in order to bring you down to earth, the real earth, so that you don't commit as G.K. Chesterton warns in his book "The Everlasting Man", " . . . sins against the light; against that broad daylight of proportion which is the principle of all reality." I'm talking about the living God who created both the quantitative and qualitative to lead us to Him like a vine and branch. I am guessing that our approach to the question should be a little more organic therefore to include things like art, practicality, experience, senses, etc., to look more like a tree, and less like a scientifically and rigidly cold sword of metal, a sword that when we fall back on and lean on too heavily hurts us. That way if the son of God enters the world saying, "I am the vine, you are the branches", perhaps we will be more able to clearly see that a tree is not merely a 15 feet tall material substance of wood that can create units of happiness for us if we cut it down, and even more units of satisfaction, dare I say it, if we were to hang someone on it who questions the authority of the things in which we trust? God gave us both the quantitative and qualitative aspect of life to lead us to him as a bird is led to build its nest in a tree, both for the soundness of the branch and for the cozy comfort by which the wind can rock it ever so slightly like a baby that is rocked in a crib. Consider the birds.


²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ²⁸ ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’^[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’( Acts 17:27-28)


Conclusion


Believe it or not this whole "farting is funny" argument is not a new argument at all. It is just another one of those tired arguments that is being restated in a creative way by an artist convinced that the popular tendency of his age of modernity is off base. Thomas of Aquino (1225-1274), the great thinker and influential philosopher of scholastic tradition something like this:


"Far be it from a poor friar to deny that you have these dazzling diamonds in your head, all designed in the most perfect mathematical shapes and shining with a purely celestial light; all there, almost before you begin to think, let alone to see or heal or feel. But I am not ashamed to say that I find my reason fed by my senses; that I owe a great deal of what I think to what I see and smell and taste and handle; and that so far as my reason is concerned, I feel obliged to treat all this reality as real. To be brief, in all humility, I do not believe that God meant Man to exercise only that peculiar, uplifted and abstracted sort of intellect which you are so fortunate as to possess: but I believe that there is a middle field of facts which are given by the senses to be the subject matter of the reason; and that in that field the reason has a right to rule, as the representative of God in Man. It is true that all this is lower than the angels; but is higher than the animals, and all the actual material objects Man finds around him. True, man also can be an object; and even a deplorable object. But what man has done man may do; and if an antiquated old heathen called Aristotle can help me to do it I will thank him in all humility."
- "St. Thomas Aquinas" by G.K. Chesterton

In Defense of Church Hopping: Prelude to a Journey, Premonitions in Magic, and Paradropping with Indiana Jones

Prelude to a Journey

To embark on a journey one must at some point decide to embrace the unknown and just get into the carriage. We are not wholly prepared for the strange encounter with myth that awaits us. That's OK. We have our little suitcase with a loose idea of where we are going, sure, but we are not ready. We will never be ready. Bilbo wasn't ready. Frodo wasn't ready. But in our case, as in theirs, it will prove to have been better for us to be on the move. The greater threat is not the threat of moving but the threat of standing still, like the threat of one who, too scared to move, entrenches himself in a bomb zone. 

Our carriage journey in defense of church hopping will first travel to a time and place long ago. We're going to Salem Massachusetts in February of 1692. We're going to learn about something we could call "magic". Our aim through this rocky journey is to expose how things work behind the curtain in order to comprehend what I'm going to call the "magic tricks". If you'll remember our hypothesis in this series is that the common orthodoxy against "church hopping" is likely being misguided and deceived.

Premonitions in Magic

We are going to need to think about magic somewhat critically here. Does that seem silly? I mean it is a little silly sounding. We have stopped believing in magic I think and that is one reason why we are susceptible to suffer from it. After all it seems from what we know that the danger or harm in stage magic is not actually real. When stage magicians get out swords it seems like they might be stabbing people through but we know from experience that this is only an illusion to entertain. We have seen the tricks of sleight of hand and illusory magic exposed on TV shows and perhaps this has given us a sort of confidence that we needn't be taking magic very seriously.



But when we talk about magic on the real stage of life, that is real magic, we are talking about something actually dangerous. We are talking about deceptions working in a way to bring about real malicious and dangerous outcomes to real people. We're talking about people getting stabbed in a real sense, I am not necessarily meaning a physical sense although it can come to that, but more so a spiritual sense. I'm talking about a magic that causes relationships to get torn asunder, where people are stabbed through the heart and wounded in their very person and soul; I'm talking about a magic that causes people to leave church fellowships discouraged; I'm talking about magic that causes ministry opportunities to become uprooted in sabotage; I'm talking about a magic so powerful that is can cause an entire community to lose hope, a magic so powerful and real that it can cause a people to begin to hide their faces in shame and fear, a magic so powerful that it can produce hate. Magic is not merely an industry anymore than playdoh hotdogs are actually a food; it is a serious and scary business that works through deception, confusion, and misunderstanding to produce monstrosities like fear and spiritual depression. When I talk about the power of the magic of the myth of church hopping I do not think I am talking about a harmless kind of magic; I believe I am talking about real dark magic like death and Hell. If there are any who want to flippantly reduce magic to a mere thing of supersititon, a thing with no material evidence or basis that died off with the advent of science and the death of ancient people, I point to the real tears of the victims of division, fear, and confusion, the victims of dangerous deceptions that have been played out. Magic has not gone away. Don't be deceived by the trickery of magic. Magic is a shapeshifter like Loki, that likes to reinvent itself with a new persona every thousand years, but magic will still work its same bag of tricks and its same curses to turn people against one another to create death, confusion, and darkness. But the truth and power of God is from everlasting to everlasting and neither has it gone away. The light always has power over darkness to expose the shifting shadows for what they are.

Since magic has never gone away and is presently in our midst we must be attentive to consider it. Attacks are always being waged on us. Bombs of deception are always being dropped. We must be quick and attentive now to make our counter attack with truth against the myths and lies that we believe. We have to disable the bomb factories that produce these dangerous misconceptions or we face the threat of being obliterated by their destructive fruit! We can't merely wish a threat away and wait. The ewoks on endor didn't wish their enemy away and wait. They, with sticks and stones, disabled the weapons control center of the infamous Death Star. David didn't wait. He killed Goliath with stones. We need that kind of courage. It is the courage of children of legend, children that gave their life in glorious charges against hell with only squirt guns in their hands, children of past ages long forgotten of real courage that we have created dishonoring myths about to our shame.

Paradropping with Indiana Jones

Let us not forget thsoe that went before us because we also must now go. We are leaving home turf to a foreign land where we will paradrop straight into the heart of the enemy. We must to get to the stronghold of the power of this myth of church hopping and disable it. That's why in our mind our carriage must begin to feel something more like a chariot.

"We are leaving home turf to a foreign land where we will paradrop straight into the heart of the enemy."

This is bound to be a journey like the journeys of Indiana Jones. It is felt that something fishy is going on but we're not entirely sure what it is. Our carriage must paradrop in to the danger and search it out. We must decipher what is really going on surrounding this myth. It is written that a wise man can go up against the city of the mighty and pull down the stronghold in which they trust (Proverbs 21:22). A history professor like Dr. Jones will prove a good symbol to help on this journey. Dr. Jones is not a push over character. He employs various tools to figure out the problems that he faces. He uses maps, artifacts, past encounters, experiences with people, intuition, a little bravado, luck, wit, and his trusty whip. A whip might be useful if only to disarm the axe from the executioner's hand until the case concerning the real guilt or absence of guilt of church hoppers can be heard and established most fairly.

“As a matter of honor, one man owes it to another to manifest the truth.” ~ Thomas Aquinas

As is often the case in the adventures of Indiana Jones there is a phantom menace working behind the scenes here, a powerful voodoo magic encouraging confusion and a sort of crazy cannibalism where Christians will devour each other. There is some mystery still regarding the myth but the power of the myth at least is realized somewhat now as a concern and threat. The plain no non-sense spirit of Indiana Jones, his caution and skepticism that he has attained through experience with things like this over many years will be a helpful symbol for us and hopefully his historicity can help cure our bewitched state.

Our defense, which actually turns out to look something more like an offense, is not against persons. We face the danger of misconceptions and the dangerous outworking of ideas. We face the danger of lies spoken in heavenly places, the danger of a darkness that lies hidden from us in shadows. Our enemies are spiritual Screwtapes and Wormwoods that divide us, working a subtle dark magic against us like a poison imperceivable through the senses. We must take up our own sort of magic, the magic that Indiana Jones wields, the magic of history and conscience, the magic of an unrelenting curiosity that is unwilling to settle for easy answers or justifications. Indiana Jones always keeps it in the back of his mind that things are not always as they appear. Some things that look safe often turn out to be dangerous traps and some things that look dangerous or appear to be dead ends are often paradoxically safe. That is why we are approaching the danger of the misconception of the myth of church hopping here with what will seem like at times a random approach. We are deliberately not being text book here, because, as Indiana Jones knows all too well, the real world, as some unfortunately have to painfully discover, isn't textbook either.

A true story from history that happened in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692, might prove useful to help us identify what our myth is about and how it works. Our goal is not to merely understand some information here. Our real goal is to gain information that can help us in the real world to work peace and justice and the love of God. We're not ready and we never will quite be. We are too small for the journey that awaits us, but such is the beginning of all good stories that call for courage. Embracing this reality now we sit at the hatch door waiting to paradrop into the belly of the beast of this myth against church hopping. It is our hope and belief that light will beat darkness, that understanding will confound confusion, and that love will drown fear. I admonish you, do not be afraid of what you cannot or do not yet understand. Love will persevere. What you do not think you can do now is possible to do with God. Have humility and faith in God and in His goodness and power.

Be met now with the foolish charge to take up sticks and stones like ewoks who destroy Death Stars or the Christian youth of legend who quench the fires of 'hell' with only squirt guns. Face down the misconceptions that face you and bring you down and beat them! Embrace this journey in defense of church hopping as it takes you on a chariot charge cutting through murky forests of myth where misconceptions lie waiting in the wood like goblins. They want to take us captive and prevent us from living life to the full. Don't let them ruin you. Fight against them. The next installment of this defense should be coming along soon to help you.

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority." (Colossians 2:8-10)
"And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances." (Matt 22:16)
"Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth." (1 John 3:18)

Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. (John 18:33-38)

In Defense of Church Hopping: Prologue

In church circles and friend groups that I am a part of “church hopping” is usually thought of as something not unlike heresy. It is easy to put this claim to the test. If you feel daring try uttering these words at your next church meeting, say, “I am a church hopper”. Now maybe you mean by that something that is light hearted, half serious, or generally positive in your mind, as if you had just musingly decided to call yourself Peter Cottontail instead of Peter Rabbit; but I think you will be surprised to discover that what you have innocently spoken in the light has been heard maliciously in the dark as: “I am the menace, Gollum, and I intend to kill Frodo and steal the ring”.

One of the reasons why I want to write a defense of “church hopping” is because the phrase is quite powerful! Uttering those words, “I am a church hopper” sets you unwittingly down a path to a certain valley of unholy transfiguration where the false prophet and the beast await you to be magnificently revealed with them as a great agent of darkness. A soft voice testifies from the deep, “You are my heretic in whom I am well pleased.” A crazed raven that has been dipped in tar flies suddenly and violently onto you. "I did not ask for this!" you erupt, "can't we talk about this?!" Defiantly you attempt to shake the tar and feathers off with as much violence as you perceived was used against you during your aforementioned transformation but it is too little too late. There has been a sign in the mind's of many. Your descent into darkness is complete, Darth Church Hopper. No longer will you be seen as that city on a hill that cannot be hidden; you will be seen as that city on a low plain, that Sodom and Gomorrah destined for a fiery judgment and already presently reconciled off the map. The spell is done. Now let Christendom forget your name, and like Judas Iscariot, may you be childless. Now let the ancient shrines testify against you just as they testify against that foolish man who "charged into 'hell' with a squirt gun". And so it is that calling oneself a "church hopper" is one of the fail-safe ways to become marginalized in church groups and settings (at least in my experience I have seen this to be the case). 

I am interested in demonstrating what I believe, that this bias against "church hopping" is unnaturally great. My opinion and my conviction is that this bias is based for the most part on misconceptions rooted in myth. I will attempt to show that it is not “church hopping” that is the unholy and sacrilegious enemy of Christendom but rather it is the overly great bias against “church hopping” that good Christians hold that we should be wary of. I'm going to try to draw from a few different things in order to show this including personal experience, historical examples, cultural understandings, theological arguments, and real pirates :).  I have decided to write this in installations in order to shine light on this topic from a few different angles. Hopefully this will make it more readable! Thanks friends!

.

On "Charging into 'Hell' with a Squirt Gun"

On Charging into ‘Hell’ With A Squirt Gun

There is a popular expression that I hear in church circles, and from pulpits, and in casual conversation from time to time. The saying is, essentially, that, “charging into ‘hell’ with a squirt gun,” is a nonsense thing to do. Let’s take a brief moment to laugh with the saying. It’s a funny way to express what is otherwise meant as a serious warning. Imagine someone charging into the unquenchable fires of ‘hell’ with a toy squirt gun filled with a few ounces of water. Good luck with that, right? Hahaha.

The laugh we get from this is a certain kind of laugh though. Its a laugh that comes from a feeling of contempt or scorn, a laugh that the philosopher Joseph Albo describes as arising when one, “ . . . observes his neighbor doing or saying something that is unbecoming to human nature or the person’s dignity.” We laugh because we feel superior to the foolish man with squirt gun in hand braving the fires of ‘hell’. We laugh at his folly for being vastly unprepared for the task before him. He’s not someone in whose footsteps we want to follow by any means.

It is unknown whether he came back or no, or what became of him exactly in ‘hell’ after his charge but we assume the worst: that he is as good as gone. We have him fixed in our minds, a timeless statue like Lot’s wife. The man who “charges into ‘hell’ with a squirt gun” is a sign, a great illustration to us all of what men ought not to do for shame. Our haughty laughter echoes in the chambers of sanctuaries, at coffee shops, and in basement rooms as we retell the legend of that man, who so full of folly, took it in himself to charge into ‘hell’” with only a squirt gun. 

This phrase I am convinced, though well intended perhaps at its outset, has now become for us a great enabling myth of discouragement. The myth is that young Christians should not take up action for the kingdom of God because they will, in all likelihood, be defeated. “Christ’s sake, you are outnumbered and unprepared,” says the myth. “Until you have managed to achieve the unachievable, until you are capable of beating ‘hell’ in your own power and strength, until you are full grown (in the brain) and know the scriptures at least as well as any good Pharisee, you have no business doing any kingdom business for the Lord. You’re simply too small and you need to ‘grow’ a little more so people don’t look down at you and laugh.” That is the myth. “Until you are like a master, you ought not serve and until you can manage ‘hell’ with as much ease as you can a small candle in the middle of Antarctica, you have no business there to do anything noble.” That’s what the myth says.

God is our Antarctica in the ‘hellish’ fires that we face in life and “Master” status was never the goal Jesus had in mind for his sheep. We are free to love God, love people, and live for his kingdom now at this present moment! But the myth encourages that we take a precautionary, delayed approach to noble action. This ends up bewitching us. The spell is that we fall into a deep sleep of inaction.   

The myth says that God cannot use small things done by single individuals to change the world. This is the exact opposite of what God has shown us to be true time and time again. “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. (1 Cor 27-29)”. The story of David and Goliath comes to mind. As a single individual he slew a foe that greatly outmatched him in size and strength and he did this with only a few small stones in hand. But do we laugh with contempt at David? No. We give glory to God for using a squirt gun to mop up the fiery ‘hell’ of Goliath that stood in the way of God’s kingdom. My friends, if it pleases you to drop the haughty laugh immediately do. What is much more of folly than “charging into ‘hell’ with a squirt gun” is feeling superior for having not done it, and then laughing at the man who chose to make a small difference.

The idea of “charging into ‘hell’ with a squirt gun” is that our young people are overly zealous but without knowledge, and without preparation, know-how, etc., to such and such a degree, and so much so, that their efforts for the sake of the gospel and God’s kingdom should be seen with contempt or scorn. They are aspiring for something so far above them, something that is clearly out of the scope of what they are capable of doing.

While it is true that we, as the young, can have zeal without knowledge, this is not our biggest problem. In fact, we have the opposite problem. What we have is knowledge without zeal. We don’t have the kind of heart it takes to charge into ‘hell’ with a squirt gun. We don’t have that kind of guts.

Our problem is not that the young are ill advisedly charging into “hell” with a squirt gun, it is that while we have super soakers, we deny the power thereof, our hands being not on the trigger, nor our eyes on the field before us to know when to shoot. We are not ready to engage the world with a gutsy heart and be “alive to Christ”. Our senses are deadened to that sort of thing at this point. We sit on the outside looking into “hell” from our safe friend groups, from our comfortable digital libraries and artificial hearths, from our institutions and homes, and we wonder why our lives are so boring, while all around us there are people who do not know the gospel, who desperately need to know the One who can save them, Jesus Christ, with promise both for the life to come and also for this present life.

The capitalist culture in which we live has brought us many blessings and great material prosperity but it has not been without cost. There is a new kind of evil we see: isolationism. We have an epidemic of lonely and depressed people, people who live vain lives on escapist computer game realities and the like, people so dispelled by efficiency and material prosperity that they have fallen for the great trap of riches warned about in proverbs, “ . . . [they] have too much and disown you
and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’”. Every one of them needs the gospel. There are people in dark places of sin and despair, in psychological realms, in the realm of ideas, in physical places, in destructive relationships, and in spiritual places so dark that it is best not to even dwell on that darkness. They need reaching, loving hands in their life. If we were less concerned about dutifying Christians, obligating them into regular church attendance with an iron fist, and collecting the tithe like movie tickets, perhaps we could see these weightier things and practice some love and justice without leaving the other things undone.

I hope its starting to dawn on you that what is accepted as orthodoxy without much of a second thought is, in my view, something more like heresy. “Charging into ‘hell’ with a squirt gun” is what we want to see! Especially in the young! Young people are the ones with the most free time, the most influence on people who can still be influenced, the most energy, the most strength, and the biggest hearts. Why have a discouraging and contemptuous, laughing disposition towards them? Let’s encourage them instead of stopping their charge! They can make an impact on the world. Don’t you believe that? That’s why we don’t need a negative saying; we need a positive call-to-action saying! Here are a few examples of sayings that would be more useful:

“Lord, make me an instrument of your peace, where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; and where there is sadness, joy.” -
Saint Francis of Assisi

“There is not enough darkness in all the world to put out the light of even one small candle.” 
-
Robert Alden


“Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5)
”Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105 an encouragement for movement perhaps?)
“The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?” (Psalm 27:1)

Those would be much better sayings for our young people to have at the forefront of their mind rather than the image of falling with their squirt gun shamefully vanquished by the overpowering fires of ‘hell’.

I think our first inclination is to be negative, to not trust the Body like a doubting Thomas, at least it seems that way in my experience. Recently I was engaged with an atheist in a public Internet forum dialogue that people, for whatever reason started to follow with interest. I was met with great warnings from Christian brothers to be careful because “whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” I heard other people make comments such as, “are you sure you’re not doing more harm than you are good?” and the like. The glass was felt to be half full and at times it seemed, strangely enough, that it was even considered something like a glass entirely empty or even, perhaps, poisonous, though the glass was really just a dialogue between a Christian with someone who is not a Christian, something that should be, in my view, considered “normalcy” in support of the kingdom of God. The “charging into ‘hell’ with a squirt gun” fear mantra was palpable as a felt attitude about the dialogue, although there were other palpable attitudes of a more encouraging sort. Those are the ones I decided to listen to. If anyone wants to examine “the glass” of this conversation as it were, it is open for viewing on facebook in a group called “Cuddle Session by Rob and Max”. We engaged each other on a wide range of topics, all of which I sought to speak to in a way so as to exalt Jesus as Lord. I did an imperfect job. It is easy to be critical and negative of someone who enters the battlefield and charges ‘hell’ with a squirt gun as it were, to criticize their technique and the way they employ their weapons, etc., but we must simply realize that doing something for the gospel of the Lord and for the glory of God is the right thing to do and we should want to encourage actions along those lines.

Charging into ‘hell’ with a squirt gun is a poor depiction of what our present situation is. It presumes that any taking of action, any going into the world is hopelessly heroic and destined to fail. It assumes that things are too big and too unmanageable in scope, like ‘hell’, when in reality charging into ‘hell’ with a squirt gun looks more like giving a cup of cold water to one of these little ones, or inviting a lonely person to hangout with a group of friends, or being a listening ear for a friend in trouble or distress, etc., things that are mightily and gloriously ‘small’ yet immensely important. Think of how David fought in the face of his great foe, Goliath. He fought bravely. Even if we feel outnumbered or outmatched, if the job of bringing the kingdom of God and the message of the gospel to our community seems so vast and great so that it feels as daunting as ‘hell’, even if the enemy is powerful and we feel certain to be defeated, we are to act in the confidence of the Lord because he is living and walking, alive, and unbeatable as far as it goes. He is the one that defeats death and sin and hell, not us. We are the ones that lead people out of darkness into the light. We do this with love, not squirt guns. Love is much more powerful than squirt guns. Light cannot be conquered by the darkness. Darkness can’t comprehend it. It doesn’t matter what darkness we are talking about: dark rock, dark paper, or dark scissors, light beats all.

We have tricked ourselves into thinking we’re in a strange squirt gun vs hellish fire paradigm and that we are unable to do anything. In a sense, we can’t do anything. Apart from Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Father we can do nothing. It has always been that way. There has always been nothing to lose and everything to gain here. It is God who gives the increase; we have only merely planted and watered. We don’t bring anything about as far as that goes or we might have opportunity to boast, and no one may boast before God.

The truth is this: a single light can lead many out of darkness. And a single man can charge into ‘hell’ (the world) with the gospel message without hesitation, though it is better to have multiple lights to do this. What we need is a new voice of optimism, a voice that says that the Lord is risen, a voice that says, “go out into the highways and the by ways and call in the people”. Because what we have is a bunch of naysayers throwing water balloons on the little sparks of fire that do exist in our midst.

Don’t be afraid to employ the squirt gun, to do the smallest actions for the glory of God, as small as bringing one of these little ones a glass of cold water perhaps. God is the God that takes mustard seeds and turns them into huge trees. Start employing small seed-like loving actions for God’s kingdom immediately, and do the exact opposite of what this phrase is discouraging you into not doing.

As always, feel free to comment my friends! Always interested in what you have to say! 

.