Honor the King

I am compelled to speak of my least favorite topic: politics, and why it is my least favorite.

I've been boxing merchandise for a right-wing warehouse the past few days, as a side-job. While some of the hundreds of bumper-stickers I've stuffed into envelopes are humorous, and a rare few genuinely insightful, most are alarmingly and needlessly disrespectful.

I am a journalist. I recognize both sides spray their share of venom. But I fail to find a reason for it. In fact, it seems to consist of reason's abstinence.

Conservatives, especially in the South, tend to view the Constitution as infallible dogma [a heresy for another time], but at the same time [bizarrely] choose not to give equal reverence to the one American closest to it. In another time or culture, such a phrase as "I hate Obama" would be a citizen's last. It would be perceived as a mellow but fatal act of treason.

America has done a fine job killing the honorary ambiance associated with Presidential leadership. This is thanks largely to our first anti-Federalist President, Thomas Jefferson. Washington and Adams before him attended their inaugurations in stately dress and carriage, and were each addressed as "His Excellency, the President." Jefferson, however, put an end to the title, and attended important meetings in his slippers, where he preferred to walk without the fancy horses, attendees, and other prudish riff-raff. These efforts, which were never rotated, immensely helped characterize the President as a common ordinary American who neither commanded nor was entitled to special admiration and reverence from his subjects by virtue of possessing his last glimmer of a title: Mr. President. While Jefferson had sound reasons for his actions [and we've come to applaud them as a culture], he soundly succeeded in turning the Presidential status into nothing of serious note.

I no serious.

I do think reverence is the proper word, for the role of Presidency is a sacred one, however sacrilegious its pontiff. In what may be the tidiest verse in all of Scripture, "Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the King," [I Peter 2:17] that final bit uses the Greek word kebed. We translate it as "honor" because it's our best English substitute. However, a more literal translation would be "weightiness." To honor something, then, is to give it weight or importance - to regard it seriously. An honorable man, it could be said, is a man who is spiritually substantial. He is solid, dignified, founded firmly, and resilient. His word is not blown away easily; he is not one to toss aside; his presence his heavy on us. A thing of weight should be regarded, measured, paid attention to.

To dishonor is literally to "take lightly." The very definition of a fool is one who considers important and weighty matters as laughable or stupid.

Yet this is precisely what we Americans have done to our President. We ridicule him. We scoff at him. We rant and curse at him. When he is mentioned, we role our eyes, growl, or sigh wearily. It is true we have a duty to question our authorities and keep them in check. And with that, we also have the right to murder his reputation. The law enables us to say most anything we like about our sovereign. But perhaps we are too free with our freedom. Too often and too easily we shift from good, clear, honest keeping-in-checking to downright, disrespectful, and abusive noise. We've let the title of "Mr. President" stand, while we hollowed out the man beneath it. He becomes just an upright suit standing at the center of a target.

The second crime of inflammatory rhetoric is it reduces whatever issue being discussed to mere passions. Making the issue an emotional one is dangerous, because the victory always goes to him with the biggest megaphone or the largest head-count. It's a good way to lose and the worst way to win. The issue itself is unaddressed; instead, we find ourselves catering to euphoria - whether ours or our enemy's. Perhaps there would be a place for this kind of dialogue, except nothing good has ever come from it. I don't mean passion should be excluded or even toned down. I'm asking for passions of an entirely other sort.

Another danger with reducing a matter to passions is that passions can be dismissed. And this is why I hate discussing politics: most of it is not worth listening to. I spend most my time ignoring and failing to care. If this spewing is what caring is, then caring seems exhausting, disoriented, and, frankly, silly. If you think you can make me care [or convince me of something] by being angry enough, you are greatly mistaken. I will only slam the door on you with an easier conscience.

I did not vote for Obama. I do not agree with Obama. I may not even like him. Or his dog. However, I honor Obama, I respect Obama, and I will obey Obama, provided said obedience does not come before conscience. The Presidency is a seat of honor; to not honor it would make me a fool, by definition.

The law does not restrain us from spewing overheated nastiness at our country's leaders, so we must restrain ourselves.

Who is a Gentleman?

This is a point of confusion. Most people are not certain who a Gentleman truly is. Many, when asked, reply that a gentleman is a male-someone who is generally "nice" or "polite." He opens doors for ladies, recycles, brushes his teeth, keeps his pants up, drinks with moderation, and never curses. He might even say "thank you" or "please" now and then - "sir" or "ma'am" if he's really heroic. While even these basic civilities are rare to come across in the modern male, most Gentlemen sigh at these standards, not because they are wimpish, but because they overlook who a true Gentleman is.

If asked, most males would reply that opening doors for ladies is a Gentlemanly thing to do. They are correct. However, when asked why it is a Gentlemanly thing, there are usually two responses. The first comes from those who were taught to open doors for ladies, were taught it was good, but were never taught its significance. It is to them a matter of habit. In their minds, the reason is irrelevant. Society has agreed it is a nice thing to do, so they do it to be nice and only nice. Their depthless response is, "I don't know. It's how I was raised."

To this the true Gentlemen brings together two patient hands and says, kindly, "You're education in door-opening is incomplete. It's only half done. You know the wherefore, but not the why." He may email you the link to this blog afterward. Perhaps he has.

The second response is from those who genuinely want to be Gentlemen and make a noble effort to become so. They tire of crass and selfish living. So to form civil habits, they force themselves to open doors. Because they act by themselves, they don't go far before trying to sort it out. "Why is this considered Gentlemanly?" he asks himself. "What makes it so?" His is the same problem as the first's: an incomplete education. Only, his response is different, because he's hypothesized his own why to the wherefore, though it is usually wrong: "Men open doors to keep ladies from straining themselves."

A true Gentleman knows a woman is a strong creature, and fully capable of opening her own doors. Many women, even, resent the second response and would rather let themselves into houses before being derogated by well-meaning males. Bravo to them. Meanwhile, the Gentleman applauds the aspirator's efforts, but comments, "You've got the motions down, but that's all you've got."

"Pardon me, madam - you entered with such ease I mistook you for a man."

Were we to trace the custom of door-opening to its beginning, we would discover that, originally, a Gentleman would open a door for a lady because he valued her comfort above his own. He was seeing to it that she was safe, warm, and away from the hostile elements of the outdoors before he dared lavish such securities on himself. It was a petty thing: it took a mere moment to do, and was soon forgotten. Nevertheless, it was a philosophical expression of honor toward the woman, because it elevated her needs above the male's.

This is who a Gentleman is: a male-someone who is willing to dispose himself to others.

This goes beyond making sure people's fundamental needs are met. A Gentleman will not stop at giving a hungry guest a bowl of soup. He will go further, and make sure the guest is comfortable and has a pleasant time eating. If the guest spills his soup, the Gentleman will do all he can to spare him embarrassment. If the guest is allergic to soup, the Gentleman would have found out before it was served. If he did not, an apology will be in order, as well as ready suggestions for an alternative dinner. Though a Gentleman does not belch or slurp, he will follow suit if his guest does.

A Gentleman is a male-someone who makes those around him comfortable. Gentleness is critical here [hence the word, Gentle-man], because gentleness is always pleasant. Nothing puts people at ease so much. Nothing is lovelier than a person who puts others before himself. "What is desired in a man is kindness..." the Psalmist says.

Life is Pointless

I don't mean that figuratively. Life is actually pointless. Both the atheist and the Christian agree on this.

Before burning me for heresy, pardon me a strange interlude.

Human beings can make pointless nonsense. Like art. Animals, planets, and the rest, must behave according to pre-set natures. They cannot act beyond these natures. Animals have sex only in season when instinct commands, "Procreate!" Humans, meanwhile, defy the point of sex and do it just for fun, all year 'round, because they are capable of the pointless. They can have sex just for the pleasure, and it still be called good.

Humans are the  exception to EVERYTHING in nature. We're awesome that way.

Humans aren't the only ones doing pointless, irrational things for pleasure. God does it too. In fact, when He made all of creation, there was no point, no objective, no end in mind, except His pleasure

We see a sliver of this divine pointlessness in man. Men do silly things all the time [and all the women cried, "Amen!"]. A child builds with blocks then knocks it down again. Why? What was the point? What did it accomplish? Nothing. He was not asked to build it. Building it gave him no sustenance. The child built it for the mere pleasure of building it. Nothing caused the child to build it. He built it of his own cause, for the child possesses the divine nature. His capacity for nonsense is an expression of the Imago Dei [the Image of God].

Then the bright-faced little Presbyterian lifts a Catechized finger [determinedly] and says, "No, we have a goal: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever!"

The statement is true. But it is not a "goal."

We are still creatures with half our nature within time and matter. All of creation has the objective to worship its creator, and humans don't get out of it. That is the universal condition. It is the predetermined "cause" of the cosmos, but only so to speak. In reality, God did not make the cosmos to meet this cause, because He didn't need to. He doesn't need to be worshiped, glorified, or enjoyed forever. He is already as glorious as can be, whether I glorify Him or not.

We go eat because we are hungry. Hunger is the cause of eating. God has no cause, because He has no needs. He is no more or less God for having made creation than if He had not. The fact is we're useless to God. There was no cause for the universe. He created it of His own cause. He created us to please Himself, and we exist to please Him.

Humans, however, have needs. There are things that are necessary to ensure survival. We must eat, breathe, keep warm, and so on. But humans are not happy with merely eating or breathing. They must add some nonsense into it. The food must be delicious, the air sweet, the warm clothes stylish, and so on. Why must we make everything we do beautiful?

I would define the work of beautifying as art, and it is something only spirits do. art serves no point. The food doesn't have to be flavorful, the clothes don't have to be colorful, and the wall doesn't need that portrait. In terms of survival, art is unnecessary. Yet art is vital because it is unnecessary! The human must have more than what is required. He longs beyond what the world offers. He must have the useless, that is, the beautiful. Beauty is of greater importance to him than food and air, because a person who finds his existence ugly would rather throw himself from the nearest bridge than endure it. He often does. So much for survival.

We can make meaningless nonsense. Not all nonsense is pretty, but all prettiness is nonsense.

We must have art because it exercises lordship. It expresses the divine. We must compose, sing, paint, and sculpt, because we are gods. Like God Himself, creation must please us. Otherwise we murder ourselves.

Man is not an animal, only smarter. He is an entirely separate creation, with a peculiar nature and a leg in two separate worlds. We are everlasting beings, yet we operate within time. Miniature gods, we: in creation, yet lords over it. Art is something we contribute to reality as co-creators. To stop would be inhuman, ungodly. It would mean forsaking our role and dashing our crowns into the earth.

But not only is art pointless. So is worship.

If creation had an "ends," it would be to please its Creator. But this is no end at all! The act of pleasing is a process, not an event. Cutting to the chase, we do not worship to gain anything from it. Recall, there is no ultimatum. If there were, worship could be calculated, measured, tidied, and processed. It would be legalistic and agendized. God would be a celestial vending machine ["I give You worship, You give me respite, comfort, healing, salvation, etc - deal?"]. We would scheme how much worship would be required to produce a desired result.

The Church has traditionally called this heresy.

Moreover, if we worshiped to gain from the worship, our entire attention would be on the worship itself. We would look to our prayers to answer themselves; we would bank our salvation on a string of words; we would expect healing from the laying of the hands itself. The Holy Spirit has no say in this false worship. He is a thought in the attic, crowded out by piles of hymns, sacraments, and prayers. This kind of worship is false because it is given a point. So long as people are looking for something from the church, they will not find anything because they are including themselves in the worship. Worship occurs when the saint loses himself, his needs, and his sins in the Divine, and glories accordingly, not allowing his left hand to know what his right is doing [Matthew 6:3].

First there is God. The worship [if it be true] comes incidentally.

Man worships because otherwise he would not be man. To take it further, man worships, but the pleasure is in the worshiping. He doesn't "receive" the pleasure afterward in the form of a reply. If and when there is a reply, the result is not satisfaction, but stirring further to even more worship.

Worship only finds worth when the Christian realizes the worship itself accomplishes nothing. And God guarantees nothing from it, for He offers no objective but Himself. He is our all in all: the path, the guide, and the destination.

And that is the whole of Christianity. The saint worships for no point whatsoever except to please his God. He is a bundle of causeless, spontaneous glory! Creation worships God by "being," yet humans worship God by "becoming."

Becoming what? I'll answer in a moment.

The Presbyterian comes back and says, "Okay, fine. All you're saying is that Christianity and eternity are journeys, not destinations. I get that. However, though life may be pointless, it is not meaningless. There is so much meaning in the journey, though there is no point, in the since that there is no finish-line."

I reply first that meaning is cheap. As the psalmist puts it, we are gods. Inventing our own meaning is easy [however deluded it may be]. God is not interested in giving people a meaningful existence. He is interested in giving them Himself.

Second, life is meaningless so long as it's only "life." It does not find meaning until it is "life with God." Any meaning you find in the worship is something you are making up. Meaning is something God gives the worship. It is not in the worship itself, nor in your worshiping.

The odd thing about this whole business is that God does, indeed, reply. He does put forth promises, and faithfully preserves them. We worship because we must. Yet there is no "must" with God. He does not answer back because we worship. He does not save us because we seek Him [for, as He states, we don't]. He is causeless. His reply is nonsense. Nothing could have merited it.

My response to grace

Nonsense has another name. It is called Grace. What we are "becoming" through worship is what in the reality of God we are already.

"For the Lord takes pleasure in His people; He will beautify [unnecessarily] the humble with salvation."
Psalm 149:4

How do stories begin?

A surreal day, an Oxford professor cleaning his office was suddenly confronted with an exquisitely blank sheet of paper, glorious and unwrinkled, ready to say something. Pinching a pen, he mused the following words...

"In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit."

After inventing this creature on a whim, the Oxford professor decided to discover what a Hobbit exactly was. And that's how it started.

Middle Earth between two ears, as the Earth between two poles. A world within a world.