A Lesson in Civics

The waves of protests running through America because of the election of Trump is, though I must it seems spell it out that I am speaking in irony here, a good lesson in civics.

It is increasingly clear that   if they don't like the election result, even if the election was fair in terms of the existing system, they feel - and feeling is the operative word, not reasoned conviction and disciplined action - they feel entitled to shout and scream and carry on like school children and protest. In fact I have just seen a video in which school children were out protesting.

Of course the reason here is plain. They do this is because they, the protesters,  believe  not in democracy but in imposing their will by the ballot box and moreover they have no sense that these are two entirely different things. And this is shown by the outrage: thwarted self will

When we had class elections at primary school in order to teach us about voting and the like we were told  that democracy requires that the voter who did not have his candidate selected must  have sufficient respect for the fact as well as nature of opposing views to accept the result. I was taught this in primary school  more than 45 years ago.

We did not call this "Civics" for my homeland  is New Zealand, a country I have never left in my entire life, but that was the purpose and I for one never forgot it even if those who did pout when their best friend was not elected class captain ignored it at the time.

I do not know what they teach in classes they all "Civics" in the USA these days, but even if they try and instil this notion of  respecting, or at least acquiescing, to  the undesired result , the culture at large has become too selfish, too glutted with the self gratification  of endless entertainments and too narcissistic to pay attention.

They fail to see that this behaviour after an election where  their man, or in this instance, woman,   lost is an even bigger subversion of a democracy they profess to believe in than such things as electoral fraud, silencing  or marginalizing third party candidates, superdelegates, and a whole system so awash with the dirty money of corporations that only the business friendly  are likely to win

But of course real political engagement requires more effort than angry noise making, which is why democracies do not last. It is easier to make some noise, smash some windows, ignite some litter bins and show that we have nothing to express but blind outrage

So they who protest think that Trump is dangerous? This may be. But do you make noises the elites will ignore simply because they are ill mannered? Believe me I have seen the objects of protest deny what we were on about as we were ill mannered. Of course in their depravity they will ignore any protest we make if it is polite and peaceful

If they believe in the political system (and whether it is worth believing in is a separate question) they are to engage in it. Party machines will go corrupt if left alone. The truly committed and engaged must flood the party memberships and agitate from within the machine.  They need to see to it that the system does not select two candidates so noxious as Trump and Clinton again

Unless of course such effort  really is a waste of time and violence leading to frenzied blood letting is all that will come, proving that democracy was only ever an impossible and naïve ideal for man never could govern himself.

But crying like children? If they are that infantilized then the situation may very well the lost already

On Masses for Peace and the like

I was listening to a movement from Benjamin Britten's War Requiem just now, and I remembered that I played in a  concert performance of Karl Jenkins' "L'Homme Arme, a Mass for Peace".

The Title L'Homme Arme" is French and means the Armed Man. There are two applications of this  that I can see. Most certainly, in terms of musical history, early pieces of music, and I mean those of  the medieval and renaissance periods, regularly based works on pre existing compositions. This is the original sense of a parody in that they were all parodies but it  implied no sense of mockery at all. The Armed Man was a French popular song at the time and many composers built masses at time that around that tune. Mr Jenkins is merely adding to this ancient and venerable tradition.

But I suspect that his intention is to contrast the military cast of the tune the Armed Man with his impassioned cry for peace, hence his subtitle and my reason for writing this.

It was a cry for peace, and impassioned one in a work that I found at times  beautiful and deeply moving. I will never forget the Benedictus with its cello solo of pure ecstasy underneath which I poured out all the passion I could at the time with a solid and rich bottom D pedal note.  But to whom was the cry being made?

"God," one might say. But which one? If a God really exists this makes all the difference imaginable; and if there is no God then the very exercise is futile. They are merely crying to the empty ether and no rational answer will ever come. It is or at least should be a truism that people do not become peace loving by hearing music, so serenading the violence is a total waste of effort.

When the religions are theist, by which I mean that the God in question actually involves himself or claim to involve himself in the creation by way of answering prayer requests, - in contrast with what I might call Deist religions - which God is supplicated is crucial. And to try and cover all bases by adulterating a catholic mass with prayers to another God is utter blasphemy.

I mean in this instance the second movement of this Mass for Peace in which a Muslim
Muzzein made his call to prayer, the ritual oration that issues from minarets and their modern equivalents five time a day. I was deeply discomforted and had I the zeal of my convictions I may have walked out. But I did not.

Not only that  but this Mass had no Credo. If Jenkins knew what a mass was he knew what a credo was. But he chose not to incorporate one.

So the Mass was a limp cry of the unbelieving to the empty ether, believing  nothing  it achieved  nothing real other than hoping desperately against hope that something might come of it. And something did, but nothing of real value. Secular modern men might shed a tear or tow and think they are thoroughly good people for being so moved. This was a piece of catharsis which lasted all of a few minutes and would have no bearing on how they lived their lives the next day.

I commented on this work as I know it rather well, having performed it as a musician. But this is what such performance arts "for peace" boil down to.

Some time ago I heard a peace on my concert programme. All I remember was that it had famous rock singers in it. It was some kind of classical rock crossover, not that I necessarily disapprove for the Jenkins was one also. But the only other thing I remember was that it cried to every god imaginable. This was utterly tragic and I dissolved in tears. This I all modern men can do when they seek to get spiritual. It was not a cry for or of hope but, being with no basis in hope at all, an expression of despair masquerading as the contrary

The Britten  Requiem mention of which I started this piece with also committed blasphemy by adding to the text as regards the story, which I am my brethren take to be literal history. When Abraham was told not to sacrifice his son the poet I think it was Wilfrid Owen, took over the narrative "But Abraham would not, and half the seed of Europe perished one by one.

And why are we Christians offended by this? Such antics as this are jeering at the only thing, or only One who will give anyone true peace. But at least we are not obliged to slaughter anyone who blasphemes in this way. Vengeance for that  and all other evil belongs to God and God only and He will repay after He has exhausted, due to the defiant unbelief of men refusing his amnesty, all other avenues.


Everyone wants peace and they pray for it, some even to the Christian God, Himself  but overall no one will acknowledge that not only is war sin but their own combatitive response to violence against them is sin as well. thus they will not repent.

As there is no peace for the wicked, as scripture says, and as righteousness in Christ is the only way to peace they will pray and sing and supplicate in vain.

Not because God has no answer to the thing but because we refuse this and seek peace on our terms, a magical intervention whereby the inner violence of men's hearts is not addressed at all.

If we want peace we seek the only God in Christ, and only through Christ  do we seek Him, and not only that but we seek to repent of our sins  genuinely rather than some token gesture or a dismissive ignoring of the whole business by lame appeals to the "love" of God. There is a love of God but it is through this that He would lead us to repent, and is not a substitute for repentance. Rather this repentance, which gift of grace  I discovered in my darkest extremity years ago and which is still outworking, is the  highest expression of God loving us there is.

But the tragedy of it is that the huge majority will not do so, nor even seek it, for it is written and demonstrably true that "strait - ie small- is the gate and narrow the way ands few there are who find it." And if Christians think they have found this way then let us all realize that few are called many are chosen.

He is rich in mercy to lead all who come to him to repentance but without repentance, which is not luxuriating in fear or guilt, far from it, there is nothing.

Nothing at all but the farce which will continue to play itself out to the bitter end

Why I am not a pacifist

I am not a pacifist. But here are my reasons why.

I am too violent, too fearful, to angry, too easily provoked, too unforgiving.

I lust for vengeance, and this is vengeance I crave not justice for it is not in love that I seek it. I have a cruel streak. If my friends have not seen it it is only because in my fear and pride I have very carefully hidden it.

In short I know myself too well

Scripture is most clear. The anger of men does not work the righteousness of God. When men covet something but have it not they fight wars. I should love my enemies, turn the other cheek and resist not evil.

But of course as a sinner I am incapable of doing these things, especially when I see that my efforts, being repression of the impulse I would oppose, is by that very nature hypocrisy

And of course I do not have the God given right to bear arms that I might blow away any who would rob me or harm me, my family  or my friends. Self defence, as we dare call it,  of this kind is not even remotely biblical. Look at the Sermon on the Mount and see how utterly opposed to human nature, my nature, that it is

The state might indeed have the right to execute criminals - I have no principled objection to the death penalty, only profound concerns about the innocent being murdered by the state due to incorrect verdicts, as happens all too often. But that any state claim to be the policeman of the World as Tsar Nicholas  I first himself up as the Gendarme of Europe from the 1830's onward, is arrogant hypocrisy. No country is so saturated in mercy and justice that it has the right to enforce what it calls morals on any other land

War is sin and the fiction of the just war was invented by that heretic Augustine, falsely in my opinion called "saint" of Hippo, the man so out of touch with his own past which included rank heresy as a Manichaean, that he required state persecution of those who were as he was as a young man.

So I am not a pacifist. Not because the contrary line  of doctrine  is even remotely justified, but because it goes against my own nature, as every commandment of God does. For I will not start from the standpoint that my impulse is right and that all doctrinal cloth must be cut to fit this presumption. If it opposes my own nature and thus exposes my own sin it may very well be true. But I cannot oppose my own nature by brute force of will any longer. Thus knowing what I should be I know that I am not and cannot be what I should be, and even my effort is a blasphemous outrage. So I would fight back like any one else

But pacifism is an ideal and by God's grace, when I have confessed and repented, and only by his grace, will He bestow it on as violent and evil a heart as mine.

And if I ever become spiritual what will I do if attacked by an armed man or some such similar?

I will do what scripture commands, and simply die, moreover, by His grace, I will die well.

But not today.

My sin is too intractable till He act, for this  to happen today

Deep Logic

C S Lewis spoke of a "Deep Magic" in his Narnia stories. I speak of a Deep Logic. The atheist account of scripture is that it is a tissue of priestly lies to control and exploit a gullible population of peasants - and this is true insofar as this has been done for millennia.

But this is abuse, not use, and abuse does not detract from proper use. For digging into the text of the Bible I see this cannot be so as pertaining to the scriptures themselves. The logic of it is something that cannot have been dreamed up by men. It is both beautiful, almost terrifying and awe inspiring. A super intelligence and wisdom lurks within the pages.

As such I have a growing conviction, not yet clear enough to really articulate properly. that the Bible itself is proof of God's being and character, that the Bible is logically self authenticating.

And the only of this is that I only became eligible to even begin to see this after repenting of Protestant Bible worship which abuses the truth of Verbal  Plenary Inspiration of the text to read it with rigidity incapable of drawing logical links within it.

However this conviction of mine is not clear enough for me to be able to articulate further than I have here at this time

Reflections on the subversion of democracy

Every one is commenting on the most recent US presidential election. This is a small part of what I could say on it

Because I never supported either Candidate in the US election (a brief flutter of hope  on the night as it became clear Trump had won notwithstanding) I did not have to justify my emotional conviction by making myself believe that my choice (for I never had one) was in any way a good person, and because I did not have such a choice I did not have to justify to others said choice by presenting the corollaries of my emotional convictions as evidence for my convictions.

To do such is to assume the truth of what one tries to prove which is to argue in a logical circle , the fallacy of "petitio principii" - lit to appeal to the principle, or begging the question. Of course such argument proves absolutely nothing. What stuns me is that intelligent people on both sides, those with degrees and university education, have argued in exactly this way subverting all rules of logic and evidential observation for the sake of emotional passion. Does anyone else see that the hysteria on both  sides, the refusal to rationally consider from the basis of what both candidates said, that THIS is more damaging to the democratic ideal than anything else?

The double standard beggars belief. Clinton supporters denied her gloating, "We came we saw HE DIED," called it opposition propaganda or out of context because they knew full well that as it clearly demonstrated that this woman is a war monger as did her destruction of Libya and her consistently hawkish record., all of which are matters of public record yet which they were too lazy to consult. But while denying her words in this manner they  insisted on  focussing on Trump's "grabbing pussy" talk or his "Mexicans are rapists" talk, or his inciting of violence talk, his offering to pay the legal fees of any who assaulted anyone who dared protest at his rallies.


But Trumpists did the same thing. The Don was "joking" "using rhetoric'- but they all call rhetoric like this  lies  when the other candidate does it -  or he was "taken out of context."  His obscene talk about women  was "locker room talk" etc and more egregiously, they insist that the media spread lies. Not when Trump is  on video saying these things. He did not mean it? This is no defence of the man, for if he really did not mean what he said  his speeches were  a cynical pandering to the redneck vote who clearly believed that Mexicans were rapists  on his cue and voted accordingly

Integrity, intelligence, reason, evidence? Even a consistent application of the standard that "the mouth speaks the fullness of the heart"'and that what a candidate might say would therefore indicate their evil? Forget it.  Even if those who argue such are Christians who profess to believe the quote from the gospels  I just gave, they have thrown away even the attempt to apply the scripture properly and instead will come up with half baked notions that Clinton was the Queen of the Witches or that Trump was chosen of God as Cyrus the Great was chosen for the Jews , forgetting that the promises of the New Covenant are more excellent than such and national protection only really applied to the Jews who have always been under the Old Covenant.

So much for belief in the gospel, when Old Covenant thought is appealed to on one hand, or rank superstition justified by blasphemous appeals to divine revelation on the other.

In the passion of this moment even the highly intelligent became part of the mindless mob. I fear for Western civilization when this becomes the nature of political discourse.

And why do professing Christians do this? Clearly they do not believe  that we are strangers and sojourners on this earth. They do not believe that heaven is our home and that the Kingdom of heaven is not of this world. So they fear like unbelievers  because ultimately they, and I insofar as I still do so, think like unbelievers. These are scriptural quotes, and if any reader calling himself a Christian does not know them he demonstrates my point.

We Christians are the salt of the earth? Not when we surrender to such hysteria as this. We have lost our savour, as well as rejected our Saviour, and risk being thrown out to be trampled  by men

 

A Retort

Some time ago I posted somewhere on some issue that really is not relevant to the point I seek to make here. But one of the replies was pure legalism. My interlocuter said that we do not get to cherry pick which commands to obey as Christianity is not a smorgasbord.

I saw no point in replying to him in the forum is question, but I think a valid point is to be made.

It says in James 2:10  that he who breaks one commandment has broken them all. It thus follows that only the perfectly sinless obey the Law, by which I mean the Moral law, for everyone else, namely sinners like us, simply do not and have not ever obeyed the Law of God.

And if anyone tries to claim that he is sufficiently free of sin to actually do so, well that is to claim perfection where there is none possible, as I John 1:10 says any who says he has no sin is a liar

Indeed Paul the Apostle also said this was the impossible  thing of the Law, and he tried hard enough to fail with specular agony. I also did and failed with years of real torment,

So, if a person does not obey the Law at all either he has cherry picked those commandments  he actually attempts to try - and failed of course - , or he has failed manifestly in all and his consistent legalistic approach  is useless.

Moreover I  assert that even trying to hold the entire Law in conscious thought to attempt to obey any of it is impossible anyway,  for the sheer strain is too much for any carnal mind.

As regards the question of legalism they ask should Christian keep the moral Law. This is a loaded question for the answer is apparently self evident. But to ask the proper question is to get a totally different answer.

This question is do any of us actually in point of fact obey the Law? The answer is NO.

This renders all our talk and all our efforts pointless.

There can only remain the personal relationship with the Spirit of Christ

My safety in Christ as it is now

I now know that I have never believed that God loved anyone, or that if He did it was only conditional on one's keeping of the Law, which I cannot do, so therefore I am excluded.

There is not the slightest value in my asserting propositions just because they are true. Such is not faith but hypocrisy  and it is an effort I can no longer endure let alone practice.  This effort is not holding fast to sound doctrine  as St Paul commands but is in fact a refusal. a self righteous one to boot, to acknowledge the sin of unbelief  whereby we have already forsaken said sound doctrine.

Thus the primacy of the intellect, a doctrine the Puritans built their lives on, is part of the hypocrite's mandate. In repressing my unbelieving heart I stirred up my unbelief to  an unmanageable extent. It is better to confess unbelief than pretend faith, and C S Lewis notwithstanding, pretending to faith is a blasphemous absurdity.

How can I be a Christian then? Not by what I believe but by Who I met that dark night now just over 38 years ago. Indeed without such encounter I hold that no one is a Christian at all, though what the encounter is, the nature of it,  is to be determined by what God knows is needful in every individual person.

And how does the Lord keep me safe, for my sense of safety in Him is slowly but genuinely growing?

He gives me ecstasy in my meditations of the Mysterium Tremendum, the tremendous mystery of His unutterable holiness.

Some 5 years  after I was converted he gave me a revelation of this, as I previously shared here earlier.

Although at this time my terror is coming out, He leads me in one on one counsel to confess to Him that I am in fact terrified - no "confessions of faith" here. Then He leads me to repent of some aspect of the unbelief behind the fear, whatever it suits His purpose to lead me in at that time. This is pure personal relationship between a terrified child and his daddy, or a patient and his counsellor - but God the Spirit is the only counsellor I will ever accept now - and it is  nothing else. I am totally helpless and reliant on His leading in cleansing.

My safety is that He is Holy and Terrible. This is not fear but Awe. And if I must tell Him that the notion that loving Him is utter nonsense or that He loves anything  but Himself is pure wishful thinking, so be it. Such as this must be confessed, for if not, and it is in you, it will destroy your faith as it nearly destroyed mine.

But I am drawn by the Tremendous Mystery  of the Holy and Terrible. the one thing I have always listened to. If I could admit to it I have discovered  by experience and relationship  His gentleness  patience and kindness, but that I cannot bring my self to do. Not yet, at least.

So though unbelieving I am relatively safe.

This work, though provisional, being a stepping stone to a further goal, is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in my eyes