kids! bills!

Spent all day with Becky and her two children, Renata (3) and Carlos (1), and even managed to have some good conversations while still keeping an eye on the kids. Fun kids. And I really like spending time with her and her husband, Jared. But there's not too much time or energy left over for writing today.

I will post this favorite Calvin & Hobbes, though:





Oh, I also got bills from the hospital and one doctor:

$26,008.10

Wow. It's so high it just seems absurd to me. Or unreal. I'm interested to see how God takes care of this...

"No one can serve two masters"

Good group discussion here last night, about authority. Heather led it for the first time (which helped) and there seemed to be a different make-up of the group, younger and less invested in "the institution" (such as Reba Place) with its authority structures. The different, "outsider" voices were very good to hear.

And one of the passages we discussed is Mt 23. 8-10:

"You are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ."

Which is a great saying of Jesus, especially when set beside this other great saying (Mt 6.24):

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

We can only have one master--so we better make sure (1) that we obey and serve the Master--alone--not his (supposed) delegates or intermediaries, religious or secular, and (2) that we aren't setting ourselves up as masters over others.


Speaking of masters and people in authority, here's a good article from the Onion:

Many Americans Still Unsure Whom To Vote Against

WASHINGTON, DC—According to Gallup Poll results released Monday, 6 percent of Americans are still undecided about whether to vote against President Bush or Democratic challenger John Kerry in November's presidential election.

"At first, I was really leaning toward voting against Kerry, because the way he tried to hide his ambivalence about his military service made him seem like a political operator," poll participant and Trenton, NJ resident Amber Barthelme said. "But then, the Bush Administration's mishandling of the Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal got me thinking that there's a lot to not like about the current administration. It's almost impossible to decide which side I don't want to be on."

According to the poll, 46 percent of the registered voters surveyed would vote against Bush if the election were held tomorrow, while 45 percent said they were ready to vote against Kerry. Factoring in the 2 percent margin of error, the two candidates are essentially deadlocked in the race to determine which candidate America doesn't support.

Researcher Jack Harmon, an analyst for the independent Beltway think tank the Dewey-Markham Institute, said these undecided Americans will be crucial in deciding the next election.

..."The two major parties face a tough struggle," Harmon said. "As the election approaches, both must convince undecided voters that the opposing party's candidate is worse than their own. As both parties take more moderate positions in an election year, it's getting harder to convince citizens that there's a reason to get out there and vote against anyone."

Brad Thomas, a Louisiana machinist, is one of many Americans who have yet to decide whom they'll vote against. "I'd like to say I'm against Bush because he lied about weapons of mass destruction," Thomas said. "On the other hand, Kerry's lack of substantive positions really disgusts me, as well."

Tina Schalek, a Branson, MO theater manager, said she is also undecided. "John Kerry's only virtue is that he hasn't been in a position to make any major mistakes," Schalek said. "On the other hand, I hate Bush's views on abortion.

"My only consolation is that a vote against either candidate is a vote against Nader."

the principled life

I'm too busy to write much today because I'm getting ready to go to Colorado to see Becky (and her family, including Carlos, who they recently adopted from Guatamala).

But I liked Calvin & Hobbes this morning:

"Any Christian who is not a hero is a pig"

[My understanding and opinion of this quote has changed significantly over the past ten years. Now, in 2014, I'd write this, under the new title, "There are no heroes in the kingdom of God."]


“Any Christian who is not a hero is a pig.”

I suspect that when Leon Bloy wrote that famous line, he was not thinking of himself as a hero. Perhaps the other one. If so, it might have been of some comfort to him to discover that actually there are no heroes in the kingdom of God.

At least Jesus didn’t seem to think so. That is, if “hero” is taken in its common sense: a great person who we can look to as a model and source of hope. Jesus resisted even being called “good” himself. ‭“‬Why do you call me good‭?” he said. “‬No one is good but God alone.‭” (‬Mk‭ ‬10.18‭) And Jesus taught his followers to respond the same way. Should they expect admiration for living the life he taught them?

‬“Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded‭? ‬So you also,‭ ‬when you have done all that you were ordered to do,‭ ‬say,‭ ‘‬We are worthless slaves‭; ‬we have done only what we ought to have done‭!’” (‬Lk‭ ‬17.9-10‭)‬

‭Jesus turned our attention away from heroes, people we’re inclined to admire, and away from the admiration of other people, and directed our attention towards God. No one is good but God alone. You have only done what you were ordered to do. It is not the servant but the master who is the source of any goodness, and the source of hope. Later, Jesus used imagery of vine and branches to present this even more clearly:

“‬Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me.‭ ‬I am the vine,‭ ‬you are the branches.‭ ‬Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit,‭ ‬because apart from me you can do nothing.‭” (‬Jn‭ ‬15.4-5‭)‬

‭It is God who is good, and who brings good into the world. Not heroic people. The apostle Paul taught the same thing when some in the early church started choosing heroes for themselves:

When one says,‭ “‬I belong to Paul,‭” ‬and another,‭ “‬I belong to Apollos,‭” ‬are you not merely human‭? ‬What then is Apollos‭? ‬What is Paul‭? ‬Servants through whom you came to believe,‭ ‬as the Lord assigned to each.‭ ‬I planted,‭ ‬Apollos watered,‭ ‬but God gave the growth.‭ ‬So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything,‭ ‬but only God who gives the growth.‭ (‬1‭ ‬Cor‭ ‬3.4-7‭)

‭God even intentionally chose servants who were not great, wrote Paul, not admirable, not heroic:

God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world,‭ ‬things that are not,‭ ‬to reduce to nothing things that are,‭ ‬so that no one might boast in the presence of God.‭ ‬He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus,‭ ‬who became for us wisdom from God,‭ ‬and righteousness and sanctification and redemption,‭ ‬in order that,‭ ‬as it is written,‭ “‬Let the one who boasts,‭ ‬boast in the Lord.‭” (1 ‬Cor‭ ‬1.27-31‭)

‭What matters is not human greatness or heroism. Those are more of a hindrance than a help to the followers of God. What matters is the God who is the source of goodness and life. To live as a child of his kingdom, inspired by God in our actions big and small, noticed or unnoticed, this is all that matters.

‭When Jesus was asked about John the baptizer, he acknowledged that John was a hero of his time: ‬“I tell you,‭ ‬among those born of women no one is greater than John.”

“Yet,” said Jesus, “the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.‭” (‬Lk‭ ‬7.28‭)

a death in the household

I thought of this prayer again this morning:




We were having a long talk about a woman who died here recently, and one of the words that kept coming up was "difficult." Which was a polite way of saying it was hard to live with her, to be in relationship with her. And this couldn't be overlooked, though I could tell people wanted so much to see her in a positive way now that she was gone. But even the reminisces of the good things about her seemed very depressing to me. I guess they just seemed so... insufficient (to cover the "difficulties").

The only way I could feel less depressed was to look away altogether and, like in that prayer, focus only on the person of Jesus.

Is this wrong? Idealism? I don't know, I suppose it is important to look at our shortcomings and faults--if the point is to repent and change and live differently. But simply "admitting" faults or "accepting" our failings, and saying we're just "human" or "real" (as opposed to the perfection or ideal of God), I don't see that helping. It may make us feel better when everyone nods and says it's okay, but I don't think that gets us any closer to who God calls us to be (individually or as a community). And that just makes me depressed and impatient.

Didn't Jesus also get impatient with the "real," "human" response he encountered? Did he accept it because "they're only human"? For example:

A man came up to Jesus and kneeling before him said, "Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and he suffers terribly; for often he falls into the fire, and often into the water. And I brought him to your disciples, and they could not heal him."

And Jesus answered, "O faithless and perverse generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me." And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly.

Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not cast it out?" He said to them, "Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." (Mt 17.14-20)

That's what we should be saying to one another: "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed... nothing will be impossible to you."

"I myself will be the shepherd"

I was feeling inspired this morning and found this chapter in Ezekiel (34). I feel like framing it and putting it up on my wall. Notice the harsh words against the wealth and use of power/force by the leaders, and also against the strong "fat sheep." Also how God responds by taking charge himself ("I, the Lord" will do it), and in place of the many shepherds God establishes one shepherd, David (symbolizing Christ--as Jesus said, "Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ." Mt 23.10):

The word of the LORD came to me:

"Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord GOD: Ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the crippled you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them.

"So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd; and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered, they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill; my sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them."

Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD:

"As I live, says the Lord GOD, because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd; and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep."

Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD:

"Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my sheep at their hand, and put a stop to their feeding the sheep; no longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.

"For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock when some of his sheep have been scattered abroad, so will I seek out my sheep; and I will rescue them from all places where they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. And I will bring them out from the peoples, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the fountains, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them with good pasture, and upon the mountain heights of Israel shall be their pasture; there they shall lie down in good grazing land, and on fat pasture they shall feed on the mountains of Israel.

"I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I will make them lie down, says the Lord GOD. I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the crippled, and I will strengthen the weak, and the fat and the strong I will watch over; I will feed them in justice.

"As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I judge between sheep and sheep, rams and he-goats. Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pasture; and to drink of clear water, that you must foul the rest with your feet? And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have fouled with your feet?

"Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD to them: Behold, I, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you push with side and shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns, till you have scattered them abroad, I will save my flock, they shall no longer be a prey; and I will judge between sheep and sheep. And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd.

"And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them; I, the LORD, have spoken. I will make with them a covenant of peace and banish wild beasts from the land, so that they may dwell securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods. And I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing; and I will send down the showers in their season; they shall be showers of blessing. And the trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield its increase.

"And they shall be secure in their land; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I break the bars of their yoke, and deliver them from the hand of those who enslaved them. They shall no more be a prey to the nations, nor shall the beasts of the land devour them; they shall dwell securely, and none shall make them afraid. And I will provide for them prosperous plantations so that they shall no more be consumed with hunger in the land, and no longer suffer the reproach of the nations.

"And they shall know that I, the LORD their God, am with them, and that they, the house of Israel, are my people, says the Lord GOD. And you are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, and I am your God, says the Lord GOD."

Is this not already being experienced and lived by those of the kingdom of God?

Jesus opened the book and found the place where it was written,

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."

And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.

And he said to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." (Lk 4.17-21)

p.s. Here's The Duplex from the day after I got out of the hospital:

poverty and property

I sent these passages from an old journal to a friend yesterday, to help prepare for our discussion on poverty (and property) at the upcoming Ekklesia Project conference.

I decided not to be an official presenter there, but just a participant in the discussion instead. One of the things that contributed to that decision is the rather high registration fee ($120). I couldn't afford that myself, and certainly wouldn't feel right about preaching "give freely" in front of a group of people that had to pay $120 admission. But the conference organizers assured me that anyone who just "walks in" (unregistered) would not be turned away, so that's what I'm going to do.

I thought the quotes in this journal entry might be good conversation starters:

I found a book by a Mennonite (modern ancestors of the Anabaptists) that offered many excerpts from Anabaptist works. It's Peter Hoover's The Secret of the Strength: What Would the Anabaptists Tell This Generation?

The Anabaptists were a diverse group. They had no centralized doctrine or hierarchy. So what I found was not so much the official beliefs of a denomination, but the witness of Christians that shared a similar faith (also similar to mine). They also shared great sufferings for that faith. Anabaptists were tortured, beheaded, drowned, and burned--by Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zwinglians alike. And they accepted these persecutions as part of the Christian life. But I'm most interested in their beliefs and practices concerning business and politics.

From Hoover:

The joint council of Zürich, Sankt Gallen, and Bern condemned the Anabaptists in 1527. One thing they held against them was their teaching on economics: "They say that no Christian, if he is really sincere, may either give or receive interest on money. They say that all temporal goods are free and common and everyone has full rights to use them."

Again, after a mass arrest of a community of Anabaptists:

The authorities questioned the heads of the homes: "May a Christian own property?" Answers received varied in detail but they were consistent: "A Christian may have property but in such a way that he has it not, and no one should call property his own.... Holders of property yet owning nothing, Christians use property only as long as it pleases God. Then, when a neighbour or when God needs it, they let it go..."

Berndt Rothmann, a south German Anabaptist, wrote:

We hope that the spirit of community among us is so strong and glorious that community of goods will be practiced with a pure heart through the grace of God as it has never been practiced before. ...All that have served their own materialism and the owning of property, such as buying, selling, and working for personal gain, interest, or speculation, even with unbelievers, and drinking and eating the sweat of the poor through whose labour we fatten ourselves--all this has disappeared completely among us through the power of love and community.

But the common use of goods was not compulsory. Leupold Scharnschlager wrote:

The example of the first Christians is often misunderstood, and because of it some try to make laws, put on pressure, and get people into a corner with what appears to be a human or carnal way of becoming "righteous." We should remember that the community of the first Christians in Jerusalem was totally voluntary. ...Some say that since the Lord Jesus expects everyone to live in community of goods, we should boldly require it of everyone. But the Holy Spirit does not want it that way. It is not man's work to force others into community, just as community itself is not a work of the flesh. We should not go about it in a fleshly way but in a spiritual way, being careful not to violate the free will of the Lord's people.

Not using force was very important to many Anabaptists. This is seen most clearly in their beliefs about politics and violence, but it was also closely connected to their beliefs on economics. An Anabaptist booklet that came out in Augsburg connected violence to private property:

Those who think they possess their goods want the government to protect them. They think it necessary to use force to keep peace, to protect their own possessions and the possessions of others. In fact, all use of force comes from the possession of property. From the holding of property comes all government and force in the world. But the communities of Christ are not based on the holding of property, but on Christ. They are subject to Christ before all else.

Also, I found this interesting passage from De Tocqueville's Democracy in America:

Not only are the men of democracies not naturally desirous of revolutions, but they are afraid of them.

All revolutions more or less threaten the tenure of property: but most of those who live in democratic countries are possessed of property--not only are they possessed of property, but they live in the condition of men who set the greatest store upon their property.

If we attentively consider each of the classes of which society is composed, it is easy to see that the passions engendered by property are keenest and most tenacious amongst the middle classes. The poor often care but little for what they possess, because they suffer much more from the want of what they have not, than they enjoy the little they have. The rich have many other passions besides that of riches to satisfy; and, besides, the long and arduous enjoyment of a great fortune sometimes makes them in the end insensible to its charms. But the men who have a competency, alike removed from opulence and from penury, attach an enormous value to their possessions. As they are still almost within the reach of poverty, they see its privations near at hand, and dread them; between poverty and themselves there is nothing but a scanty fortune, upon which they immediately fix their apprehensions and their hopes. Every day increases the interest they take in it, by the constant cares which it occasions; and they are the more attached to it by their continual exertions to increase the amount. The notion of surrendering the smallest part of it is insupportable to them, and they consider its total loss as the worst of misfortunes.

Now these eager and apprehensive men of small property constitute the class which is constantly increased by the equality of conditions. Hence, in democratic communities, the majority of the people do not clearly see what they have to gain by a revolution, but they continually and in a thousand ways feel that they might lose by one.

And I believe this also applies to the "revolution" of the kingdom of God.

"Voting doesn't do jack."

That's a quote from the discussion last night, by Eric (a new intern here). There wasn't much discussion about voting, but the issue is close to home because it seems Heather and Katie (Eric's girlfriend) do vote while Eric and I do not.

Hmm. I was thinking of saving this for later in this election year, but what the hey. It's a section from my journal several years ago:

I found several interesting passages about government and voting in G.K. Chesterton's book, What's Wrong with the World. For example:

This is the first essential element in government, coercion; a necessary but not a noble element.

What's especially interesting is that Chesterton believes in government; he believes it's unavoidable. He may call political institutions ugly, or consider them the result of evil, but he takes them to be necessary evils. That makes his evaluation seem more fair and honest to me. And I think many people who understand politics and history would agree with him. Even I agree with him, in his critique of "ugly" government (it's the necessity I don't accept--if we could only get rid of the malicious fallacy of "necessary evil" maybe we would stop forcing that evil on others!).

As Chesterton continues to describe the ugliness of government, he also considers the unique ugliness of democracy (though he is a strong supporter of democracy, as the lesser evil):

All government then is coercive; we happen to have created a government which is not only coercive; but collective. ...in self-governing countries the coercion of criminals is a collective coercion. The abnormal person is theoretically thumped by a million fists and kicked by a million feet. If a man is flogged we all flogged him; if a man is hanged, we all hanged him. That is the only possible meaning of democracy.... In a republic all punishment is as sacred and solemn as lynching.

I've thought about the coercive aspect of democracy before. We usually see democracy as non-coercive, since it is "rule by the people." But "the people" are not all of one mind. The usual result is rule by the majority, with their decisions being forced upon all others. As Chesterton pointed out, the "abnormal person" is subdued or silenced by the mob--by collective coercion. We take that to be a good thing in the case of wrong-doers; but the same treatment is also given to saints and prophets, who are abnormal in the opposite way.

Another great line:

Voting is not only coercion, but collective coercion.

Through the process of voting, people in a democracy take responsibility for their own government. This is considered a "right." But is government something we want to take responsibility for? Are coercion and lynching what we want to take responsibility for? We allow people to govern themselves rather than having to obey the will of a despot, but then all the people gather together to become despotic.

Especially during this election time, I hear and read about "getting involved," "changing the system for the better." We're supposed to improve things by exercising our voting rights and using the power we've been granted. We're told we can make government better by being a part of it. But I don't see that happening. What I do see is people supporting political candidates they don't really believe in because that candidate is the "lesser of two evils" or the only one who has a chance to win. I see people manipulated by the media to support someone that those in power have selected (either of the mainstream candidates). I see people being dragged (or enticed) into a very ugly political institution. And they're told it's a right, a privilege, a sacred duty. Ugh. If people want to subject themselves to the coercion of government, fine. If people decide to take part in the governmental coercion of others, that's bad, but worse for themselves. But to try to convince other people to join the mob is the worst.

Joining government is not the way to make things better. Being better ourselves, and being a good example for others is the best way. And part of that is to stop pushing other people around. Stop trying to MAKE THEM be good. Jesus' life was a continual practice of non-coercion--turning the other cheek, not resisting the evil person, enduring death rather than calling down a legion of angels--so that people's hearts might be converted. That's love, that's goodness--not government.

falling on my face

It seems I had a great fall last Sunday morning (I don't remember, but I don't think I was prideful just before that...). Fell pretty hard, too: broken nose, concussion, amnesia, and lots of bruises. Spent four nights in the hospital. And though they did lots of major tests (spinal tap, two CT scans, chest x-ray, MRI, EEG, and multiple blood tests) the doctors couldn't figure out what happened, other than that the fever I had seemed to indicate some kind of infection. Weird.

Now I'm curious to see what happens about the (very large) bill, since I don't have insurance. I told them that right away. The care was good, though, and they didn't spare any expense or test. A good sign was that I didn't have to pay for the antibiotics the doctor prescribed (to finish the treatment). We'll see how St. Francis hospital handles a poor man...

Then this past weekend I went to Plow Creek farm to visit Erin. It was great. A perfect place to recuperate. We picked strawberries and Erin made some strawberry-rhubarb pies (like Mom used to make when I was a kid). Her sister also came and Heather, too. So it was a fun gathering. I'm so glad I didn't miss it, especially since Erin just got back from Colombia and is leaving soon for Canada (on another CPT assignment).

At one point, Heather asked about what I thought heaven would be like. And this weekend did seem to have heavenly aspects for me. I don't know if it was being detached from my normal routine by the hospital stay, or the rush of new strength after being in bed so long, or just the joy of being with good friends in a beautiful place, but I got this feeling of eternity there. Time seemed suspended. It felt like we had been there a long time together, and yet it was as if the minutes weren't passing at all (and I was happy about that!). Made me think of 2 Peter 3.8:

...with the Lord
one day is as a thousand years,
and a thousand years
as one day.

dog days

I'm house-sitting for the neighbors to keep their dog company (which also means I get a house to myself for a couple days--a nice luxury).

That reminds me of this Mother Goose & Grimm: