Advent Devotional — Saturday, December 8

12/8/2007, 8:00 am -- by Mike | No Comments

Saturday, December 8, 2007
“Yes, I know the plans I have in mind for you, Yahweh declares, plans for peace, not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope. When you call to me and come to me, and pray to me, I shall listen to you. When you search for me, you will find me; when you search wholeheartedly for me, I shall let you find me.” (Jeremiah 29:11-14a; a midday reading from The Divine Hours)

On the face of it, this passage is part of a letter from Jeremiah to the people in exile in Babylon. The first paragraph of the letter is downright depressing: to the people who had hoped that this exile would be short-lived and that they’d be able to return home soon, Jeremiah says, “Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease” (Jer 29:5-6). In other words, settle in; you’re going to be there a while.

But then Jeremiah delivers this word to the people, that God still has plans for them, plans for a future and a hope. Though many of them would not live to see it, God still had their best interests in mind. There would be a future for God’s people.

I remember during my time in college, we would sing a song where the words were simply the NIV version of this Scripture: “I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for good to give to you a future and a hope.” The song caused many sentimental tears as seniors contemplated life beyond Houghton and reflected that God would take care of them wherever they went.

Of course, this is true. But in that setting there was something supremely foreign to the original text. We were college students, many of us children of privilege, graduating from a school known as one of the “Evangelical Ivies.” We were going into a world where job prospects were bright, where a degree could take us a long way in business, ministry, or graduate school. Most of us were returning to homes where our parents would put a roof over our heads and food in our bellies as long as we needed them to, while we got our feet under us.

This word was not written to children of privilege; it was written to foreigners and aliens in exile. And it did not tell them that if they just held on, they would see evidence of God’s faithfulness; it assured them that they would not see such evidence. And even though they would not see such evidence, still God was faithful. It assured them that even though they would live and die as foreigners, God was still in control and had a plan bigger even than their individual lives and success.

One cannot hear this passage as it was intended until he is in exile. One cannot understand it until she has given up their need for resolution in their lives; we cannot grasp it until we have given up our need to understand, reconcile, or be satisfied with their lives. Only when we have given up happiness as a main goal can we know, as those ancient exiles did, that God has a plan bigger than ourselves.

History in Making

12/8/2007, 2:21 am -- by Djere | 7 Comments

I may have made history on my lunch break today.

I spent my hour of personal freedom emailing each of the major presidential campaigns with an identical question. I will share the question now, but I’ll wait to see how many replies I get before sharing the candidates’ OFFICIAL opinions.

Jeremiah Maxon wrote:

Subject: Question on an Issue

To Whom it May Concern:

There are many who are convinced that Zombies are the most convincing threat to national security. Where does your candidate stand on the issue of Zombies?

Sincerely,

Jeremiah Maxon
bweinh.com

This could be the best election year EVER!

USA PATRIOT Act

12/7/2007, 7:25 pm -- by Steve | 1 Comment

Misunderstood and misinterpreted, perhaps no piece of legislation in the history of our nation has been more vilified than the USA PATRIOT Act. Liberals and libertarians alike assail and revile it, with overblown claims of its supposedly horrifying effect on the privacy rights of American citizens, painting the picture of nosy, moralistic government agents, hunched over in a small room a la The Lives of Others, keeping dutiful tabs on each and every telephone call or email critical of Laura Bush’s earrings.

Imagine my surprise when I read the bill.

Or — to be accurate — read the bills. See, the USA PATRIOT Act (it’s an acronym, and that’s the proper title) isn’t a single bill per se. It’s mostly a series of amendments to existing bills, designed to make America’s intelligence-gathering and prosecution more flexible in light of the recent and vast changes in technology and the growing threat of international terrorism.

Here’s another surprise. Rather than being a wholesale Cheney-spawned attack on privacy, many of the changes it wrought actually increased the privacy rights of American citizens. Let me give you some examples.

Section 223 created civil liability, where none had existed, for unauthorized disclosures of the material collected in electronic surveillance. Section 218 requires a “significant purpose” of a FISA search or surveillance, which already requires the target to be labeled an ‘agent of a foreign power,’ to be the collection of “foreign intelligence information,” which has a clear definition in the law, and cannot be somehow twisted to include your plans this weekend. This was a change from the original requirement (“the purpose”), but more stringent than the administration sought (“a purpose”). Section 215 (discussed further below) requires a court order to obtain information that the police can get right now without a warrant — to ensure there’s a paper trail and someone responsible. Section 109 of the reauthorization requires congressional oversight and reporting over most, if not all, of the new features.

Know what else? Most, if not all, of the more controversial sections have sunset provisions, which require repeated approvals by Congress, to ensure they are not being misused.

Section 206 allowed roving surveillance under FISA, which meant that rather than having to stick to tapping static phone lines while all the terrorists bought cell phones to plot attacks, we could allow investigators to tap a number or numbers. This requires a court order, and only applies to “agents of a foreign power,” but because of the possibility that an innocent bystander could use a tapped number or device, this still has a sunset provision, set to expire in 2009 (as best I know). Additional requirements added by Congress include specific facts and notice regarding each place or number, requiring government justification for every use.

The infamous section 215, regarding business records (including libraries and the like), is limited — you might not know this — to investigations designed to “protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities” or to get “foreign intelligence information not concerning U.S. persons.” No investigation of an American can be based solely on information protected by the First Amendment either. Anyway, all this section did was allow intelligence gatherers, with a court order, to look at the same information the police already could — there is no constitutional right to privacy, after all, in your library books. And there’s still a sunset provision, expiring in 2009 — plus extra amendments that allow challenges. Oh, and as of April 2005, DOJ had never used it in a library or bookstore.

I forgot — section 106 of the reauthorization added a whole host of additional requirements for this section too — facts about relevance to the investigation, enumeration of minimization factors, and a description of the specific tangible things being sought in the search — plus a provision for review by a three-judge panel, and oversight by the Attorney General and Inspector General.

And no. There’s nothing about making any US citizen disappear, or detaining any US citizen without a trial. That’s nothing but groundless nonsense, with no textual support whatsoever. In the first appeal heard from a FISA case, by the way, the appeals court imposed restrictions that were not in the law or the Constitution — requiring that law enforcement officers not make recommendations to intelligence officers about the initiation or operation of FISA searches or surveillances, and (erroneously, by the text of the law) claiming that applications for electronic surveillance could be approved only where the government’s objective was not primarily directed toward criminal prosecution of foreign agents for foreign intelligence activity.

Trouble understanding? What that means is that even in cases under FISA — which are limited to people under the control and direction of foreign powers, defined in such a way that the nature of their affiliation is a crime — we have to keep criminal law and intelligence-gathering separate. And when it comes to US citizens, the wall is fully intact. FISA laws have strict requirements about American citizens — if there’s a chance a tap or search will affect a US person, at the very least, the information must be “to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”

You’re thinking — they’ll define that to include my local Ron Paul meetup! But they can’t! They have to go before a court originally with a long list of requirements, get an order that is very specific in what they can and cannot do, and then get re-authorized every 90 days after that. A few of these requirements don’t exist if American citizens aren’t involved, but courts are still involved, and the fruits of the search become a matter of record for the judge to consider in extending the time. The only time that there’s no court order requirement is when the wiretap is meant to intercept communications between actual foreign powers — overseas (or, I suppose, in their embassies).

These laws were not designed to decrease privacy, and on balance, they don’t do so for American citizens. What they do accomplish is to update the law in the area to include new technology, and allow some information about terrorists to be shared between law enforcement and intelligence agencies (although, as we’ve seen, this has been limited by the courts).

And I’ll repeat it one more time. There is absolutely ZERO chance that any of these changes could be used to arrest and detain an American citizen in the United States without due process. Enemy combatants in foreign lands are not American citizens, and although we could debate this, I don’t think they deserve any of our legal or constitutional protections. The Fourth Amendment requires a certain level of protection in our criminal law, and it’s been defined to require probable cause that you or I have committed a crime. The FISA laws and others like it, amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, actually require a higher standard — probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign power, or that the information is to protect against international terrorism. Determined by a judge.

This was too long. But I had to say it.

Ask Bweinh! Poll — Hardest Jobs

12/7/2007, 11:45 am -- by Bweinh | No Comments

Today’s Ask Bweinh! poll — sponsored by Wendy’s: have it your way!

Rank	Job	Points
1.	Miner	18
2.	Crab Fisherman	11
3.	Policeman	9
4.	Prison Guard	7
5-8 (tie)	Middle School Teacher; Missionary; Overnight Stockboy; Lumberjill	5
9-11 (tie)	Househusband; Farmer; Child Care	4
Other	Soldier; Retail; Oncologist; President; Fast Food; EMT; Sweatshop; Septic System Cleaner; Divorce Mediator; Nurse; Janitor; Mathematician; WalMart Greeter; Starving Artist; School Bus Driver; Miami Dolphin; Telemarketer	1-3

Excerpt from the Real Journal

12/7/2007, 9:30 am -- by David | No Comments

Monday, December 3rd, 2007 — lunch in the library at home

December, almost another year gone. I read Mark 1 through 4 today; in Mark 4:39-40, Jesus is awakened by His disciples and rebukes the wind and sea. He then rebukes them, saying, “Why are you so fearful? How is it that you have no faith?” Jesus Calms the Storm

The result?

“And they feared exceedingly and said one to another, ‘What manner of man is this, that even the wind and sea obey Him?’ ”

We go from fear to fear. We’re afraid, when God leaves, that the world will crush us. Then when He returns, and we see the extent of His amazing power, we stop fearing the world and fear Him instead. Puny, frightened creatures we are.

We fear both the absence of God and the presence of God. We fear what will happen while He’s gone and what He will do to us upon His return. We are afraid to be away from Him and terrified of walking with Him. We long for His presence, assured that His coming will set all things right — and then run like scared rabbits when He tries to move in our churches, or our lives.

We can’t live without Him, and we can’t live with Him.

What is this safe distance we seek in ritual, tradition, the priesthood, the hierarchy, but a manifestation of our fears? John said, that in Him there is no fear, for perfect love casts out fear. We are like the Israelites, who said to Moses, “Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us — lest we die.”

We cling to the Old Testament types of the Sabbath and the tithe because they limit our obligations — and our contact — with God almighty. We embrace the priesthood and the ritual for the same reason.

Derek Webb has a song called A New Law that expresses it quite well.

Don’t teach me about politics and government; just tell me who to vote for
Don’t teach me about truth and beauty; just label my music
Don’t teach me how to live like a free man
Just give me a new law

I don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy
So just bring it down from the mountain to me

I want a new law . . .

Don’t teach me about moderation and liberty; I prefer a shot of grape juice
Don’t teach me about loving my enemies
Don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit
Just give me a new law . . .

What’s the use in trading a law you can never keep
For one you can — that cannot get you anything

Do not be afraid
Do not be afraid

Do not be afraid . . .

Advent Devotional — Friday, December 7

12/7/2007, 8:30 am -- by Mike | No Comments

Friday, December 7, 2007
“Lo, how a rose e’er blooming
From tender stem hath sprung!
Of Jesse’s lineage coming,
As men of old have sung.
It came a floweret bright,
Amid the cold of winter,
When half-spent was the night.” (Lo, How A Rose, 15th century German carol; part of a reading from the Vespers Office in The Divine Hours)

Jesus as a rose; it is a decidedly non-Scriptural thought, but worthwhile. The passage to which the hymn alludes is, of course, Isaiah 11:1: “A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.” The idea is that the line of David, long since considered dead, would again gain life in a coming king, a king we Christians understand to be Jesus. Of course, Jesus is depicted as a young shoot which will grow into a strong tree, noble and majestic, even more so than the stump which preceded it.

And yet those 15th century German Catholics (Christians were all Catholics then) took this verse and made Jesus not a strong tree, but a tender, beautiful rose. Not a sapling rising up from a dead stump, but a gentle, defiant rose poking through the snow in the dead of winter, even in the middle of the night. As I say, the image is not Scriptural, at least not exactly. But I think it is an important image nonetheless. In a way, they are quite similar; each points to Jesus embodying life even in the midst of death all around him. Both dead tree stumps and long German winters are inhospitable to life, and both saplings and roses point to life in the midst of such inhospitality.

But I think the analogy of the rose is an important one because it is beautiful, and if I may say it, feminine in a sense. Often, we characterize Jesus’ life and mission in stereotypically masculine terms: conquering death and hell, vanquishing demons, achieving our salvation and rescuing His people. Yet Jesus’ life was more than a contest won, more than a task accomplished.

His was also a life that embodied beauty. Can we not say that the Christian life is the most beautiful life there is? Can we not say that the Christian vision of a life rightly lived, using the gifts He has given us for His sake and the sake of the world, is not just effective but also beautiful? Was not His self-sacrifice on our behalf not only justifying but beautiful?

Christ came to do more than the simple accomplishments of tasks that needed to be done; He came to embody this beautiful life and to allow us to enter into it more fully than we ever could on our own. For that we need more than a utilitarian tree; we need a beautiful Rose.

Quote of the Day, 12/7/07

12/7/2007, 7:00 am -- by Bweinh | No Comments

“With confidence in our armed forces — with the unbounding determination of our people — we will gain the inevitable triumph – so help us God.” — F. Roosevelt

This Week’s Chick Tract

12/6/2007, 11:00 am -- by Steve | 1 Comment

{democracy:174}

Advent Devotional — Thursday, December 6

12/6/2007, 9:15 am -- by Mike | 3 Comments

Thursday, December 6, 2007
“But there is one thing, my dear friends, which you must never forget: the Day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then with a roar the sky will vanish, the elements will catch fire and melt away, the earth and all it contains will be burned up.” (2 Peter 3:8, 10, part of a reading in the Midday Prayer in The Divine Hours)

Peter wrote to a congregation in crisis. The church had been targeted for whatever reason by a group of teachers espousing false doctrines; Peter wrote to set the church straight and to encourage them to hold fast to the truth.

One of the doctrines these false teachers taught was that Christ was not going to return. One can understand how such a doctrine would make sense to this congregation. Christ had come and gone at least 30 years prior to the writing of this letter, and as the first generation of Christians were dying out, no doubt it was tempting to rethink this vital Christian doctrine and try to make sense of it some other way.

2 Peter argues strongly that Christ will indeed return, and offers another reason for Christ’s delay: that God reckons time differently than we do, as “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day” (3:8). God’s time is not necessarily shorter or longer than ours, it is just different; and it is impossible to predict when Christ will come back. But Peter ramps up the intensity a bit by reminding his listeners to be aware that the Day of the Lord was coming with apocalyptic signs and suddenness. Since the time was impossible to predict, Christians needed to live in a constant state of readiness.

The paradox of Advent is that on one hand, we are awaiting the coming of a helpless baby; on the other, we are awaiting a day in which the sky will vanish and everything will burn up. Whether or not we take the passage literally, the point is clear: the coming Day of the Lord will be a day of tremendous apocalyptic upheaval in which nothing will be left untouched. This seems far removed from the pastoral scenes that decorate our Christmas cards.

This paradox is a healthy thing, because it forces us to realize anew that Jesus was no ordinary baby. Here is one destined to cause the rising and falling of many people. Here, in the stable, is the chief cornerstone of the New Jerusalem; here, in the stable, is the stumbling-block to the Jews and the foolishness to the Gentiles; here, in the stable, is the first-fruits of those who have died; here, in the stable, is the one who will rend the sky and bring forth the Day of the Lord, when we all will stand in His presence, as our advocate and judge.

Joke of the Day, 12/6/07

12/6/2007, 7:00 am -- by Bweinh | No Comments

Did you hear about the talking Jewish Mother doll? You pull the string and it says, “Again with the string!”

Please Do Not Vote For . . .

12/6/2007, 1:00 am -- by Steve | 45 Comments

I’m depressed by the Republican presidential race. For one thing, I’m an arguer, not a salesman, so when I find the biggest problem facing my favored candidate is that many conservatives don’t trust him, I’m stuck. I can’t argue people into trust; all I can do is point out the man’s tremendous competence and his change of heart on certain important issues.

Conservatives and American Christians have this in common — we all talk a lot about spreading our message, but when we finally win someone over, we don’t know what to do with him.

So more than arguing for someone, I find myself arguing against candidates, two specifically. One is Mike Huckabee, the silver-tongued Southern preacher who sees the federal government as a sanctified instrument to carry out any scheme he can dream up. I disagree with him on taxes, on immigration, on federalism, on a gay marriage amendment, on trade, on agriculture subsidies, on regulating private salaries, and for the love of all that’s good, on the federal government trying to tell us we can’t smoke in public or eat fatty food. I agree with him on some of what’s left, but I can’t support an underlying philosophy that begs Washington to run our lives. It’s not safe and it’s not right.

Then there’s Huckabee in reverse: Dr. Ron Paul.

Some people should definitely vote for Ron Paul. My friend Ethan, for instance. He’s a committed libertarian who believes drugs should be legalized, seat belt laws should be eliminated, and that the USA Patriot Act violates our civil liberties. He’s wrong on all three counts, I am certain, but he believes these things, he’s consistent in his beliefs, and so Ron Paul is right for him, no doubt. If you’re like Ethan, I’m glad there’s a candidate who says precisely what you’re thinking, even though I will never agree with you.

And as for the rest of you, I get why you like him right now. He has principles and sticks to them! He understands federalism! He respects the Constitution! When he says he would gut the government bureaucracy, we know — we know — he means it with everything in his soul. So I get it, I get it — he’s not a typical politician. He certainly doesn’t have the weaknesses of either Huckabee or Romney.

But I need to tell you some things, very briefly.

1) Ron Paul’s policies would endanger our nation
I put this first because it’s most important. On foreign policy, Ron Paul is an absolute walking nightmare. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq without a thought of the effect on a nation we have a duty to help rebuild. A policy of solitude and “nonintervention” far better suited to the 17th century than the 21st. Opposition to the Patriot Act, based on groundless and foolish worries about privacy that have absolutely no basis in the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE LAW (I know, I read the blasted thing, and got the only A in the dang class).

Even if I agreed with Ron Paul on everything else, these beliefs about how our country should deal with the rest of the world and the threat posed by Islamic terrorists would absolutely prevent me from voting for him. And no, Dr. Paul, we did not invade Iraq on “false pretenses.” Saying otherwise is shameful, and ignoring the success we’ve had over the past six months is ridiculous.

2) Ron Paul’s plans would hurt our economy
There’s no doubt that government is too big for its own good. But the answer is not to abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve (let alone the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA). Did the good doctor treat headaches with brain surgery? Beyond all this, Paul also wishes to return us in some fashion to the gold standard, which would artificially cap the total value of our nation’s economy based on how much of a certain really pretty rock we manage to dig out of the ground.

But meanwhile, our economy continues to grow! Inflation and unemployment have both remained historically low for a very long time. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being created each month. So, hey, let’s elect the guy who wants to bring us back to the good old days! Er, wait…

3) Ron Paul’s philosophy is wrong
Much is made of Ron Paul’s commitment not to vote for any bill that is not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. I appreciate this very much (even though I think he has a vastly oversimplified understanding of that document), and I respect his commitment to federalism. But I do not and cannot support libertarianism as a philosophy.

My faith and my experience bring me to the conclusion that individual freedom should never be the single guiding star of our existence, and this means that I feel it is both appropriate and right for government to, for instance, outlaw prostitution, ban certain drugs, and set speed limits. Ron Paul does not. I don’t believe juries should be able to change the law as they see fit, or that we are drifting into a totalitarian state. Ron Paul does. Clearly I cannot vote for him.

So if you believe in libertarianism, give Paul your vote with gleeful abandon. But if you’re just a regular conservative who’s fed up with a bunch of politicians you don’t think you can trust, I urge you: please rethink supporting Ron Paul. There’s someone better for you, and for America, out there.

And, by the way — the same goes for Huckabee. Double.

Battle of the Bands XXXVIII

12/5/2007, 7:44 pm -- by Bweinh | No Comments

Moving on is Everyknee! The next contestants are below, from Romans 15 and 16.

{democracy:173}

Bible Discussion — Romans 15/16

12/5/2007, 12:00 pm -- by Bweinh | No Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next two chapters in the book of Romans, Romans 15-16.

Genesis: 1-4 | 5-9 | 10-14 | 15-18 | 19-22 | 23-26
27-29 | 30-32 | 33-36 | 37-39 | 40-43 | 44-46 | 47-50

Exodus: 1-4 | 5-8 | 9-11 | 12-14 | 15-18
19-22 | 23-26 | 27-30 | 31-34 | 35-40

And the book of Romans: Ch. 1 | Ch. 2 | Ch. 3 | Ch. 4 | Ch. 5 | Ch. 6
Ch. 7 | Ch. 8 (I) | Ch. 8 (II) | Ch. 9 | Ch. 10 | Ch. 11 | Ch. 12 | Ch. 13| Ch. 14

INTRODUCTION:
David:
The last two chapters of Romans are filled with last-minute admonitions and personal greetings, along with some interesting nuggets.

MC-B:
Paul’s best instruction manual to believers concludes with another reminder to serve one another, build each other up, and listen to what is good.

SOMETHING YOU’D NEVER NOTICED BEFORE:
David:
In 16:26, the phrase “the scriptures of the prophets.” It’s significant that a New Testament writer testified that what the prophets wrote was scripture.

Steve:
Paul describes intercessory prayer as “striv[ing] together with him” in his work.

Chloe:
In verse 27, is Paul saying the Gentiles owe the Jews money because the Jews shared their spiritual blessing?

BEST BAND NAME FROM THE PASSAGE:
MC-B: Holy Kiss
David: Lucius and Jason, Erastus the Chamberlain
Chloe: Hindered, The Gentiles
Steve: Brother Quartus, Strive

Continued here!

The Dragon Tree

12/5/2007, 10:30 am -- by Chloe | No Comments

In a place called Clissold Park in North London, where dogs run without leashes and babies learn to walk, off the path and far into the cold emerald grass, there is a dragon, cursed by an English witch hundreds of years ago to be eternally rooted in the ground, to pay for transgressions long since forgotten.

The dragon is mossy green with age, and ribbons of bark twist around his huge serpent-like branches. His coils stretch far and low, curling like arabesques in stone cathedrals, and reaching out to those who happen by him. At first glance it is impossible to tell whether he is inviting people to take refuge under his canopy or clawing the sky, writing in agony with the wind.

I have only ever seen the dragon in the winter, when the leaves have all fallen and he looks ragged and lost, like nature put far too much work into one side and forgot about the other. His branches lie at the height of my shoulder, five feet from the ground, and I can wrap my arms around them as if I were holding a horse’s strong, muscular neck, and feel the strange warmth in the tree’s core, the flame of his breath that has yet to burn out. He is a climbing tree, and a limber person could clamber all the way to the top branches to view St. Paul’s and the Gherkin defining London’s horizon, or simply settle in the cleft of a low-hanging branch and write verse or read old novels.

When I first discovered the dragon, I couldn’t tell if he was writhing or beckoning, whether the warmth in his branches was from the burn of fighting muscles or the comfort he exuded. I couldn’t decide whether the holes in his trunk and the creeping moss were conquerors or companions. Perhaps, I thought, he was a content and wise old tree — or perhaps an embittered dragon biding his time, waiting to break free.

Whatever the case, I took on impulse the invitation to recline where the trunk had split at the base so that another gently sloping trunk had grown out of the ground. I accepted the proffered place to sit and muse, to lie back and tell him my thoughts on God and nature, on my fellow man and our history.

During these long afternoons, the dragon taught me things he had learned throughout his centuries in the ground. He described to me the great people who took their first steps within his circumference, the heinous crimes committed beneath his branches, and the everyday commonalities that taught him the most about humanity. He taught me that men search for God in whatever they can, be it mountains or oceans, stars or suns, or trees that reach out to touch people, to brush their shoulders and say, “Come, I have much to tell you.”

The dragon taught me that, as great as nature is, and as much as it can fill me with awe, the Creator is still greater. He taught me that I too must learn patience and discernment if I will be wise like the dragon. He taught how the world will go on after I have passed away and time has swallowed my memory, how I am so undeniably small.

There is a dragon in Clissold Park in North London. I have never hugged, never loved, never learned from a dragon before. But the dragon in Clissold Park, cursed by a good British witch, has learned much in his years in the ground, sedentary and silent but for the wind. He has learned that when one’s movement is measured in decades rather than seconds, one must calculate each choice carefully: that choosing to writhe is choosing to writhe for an eternity, and choosing to beckon is choosing to listen and teach forever. And he learned that though each small movement will make its impression on his form, only the results of centuries will be remembered.

Advent Devotional — Wednesday, December 5

12/5/2007, 9:30 am -- by Mike | No Comments

Wednesday, December 5, 2007
“Cease doing evil. Learn to do good, search for justice, discipline the violent, be just to the orphan, plead for the widow.” (Isaiah 1:16b-17, part of the Midday Reading in The Divine Hours)

Isaiah here gives us quite a difficult to-do list. In the context of a passage where God has grown tired of his people’s offering, what Isaiah is essentially asking us to do is to repent, to re-orient our lives — and this is done through active steps of discipleship.

Our Christian subculture assures us that the important thing is what we believe, not what we do. Check the bumper stickers at your local Christian book store: “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.” “No Jesus-no peace. Know Jesus-know peace.” And these are true as far as they go. But here Isaiah makes the point that what makes our worship acceptable to God is also a matter of what we do. It is a matter of ceasing one way of life and beginning another. It is about knowing goodness and justice rather than self-aggrandizement. It is about caring for the weak in society (the widows and the orphans) and about the violent (notice the command to “discipline” rather than “punish” the violent).

John the Baptist took all this one step further: “Repent,” he said, “for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” God is coming and if you want to be able to stand in his presence — if you want this to be good news instead of bad news — you will need to purify your lives. You will need to take on certain practices, and you will need to let some dear things go.

During Advent, the call is the same: God is coming! And for much of the world this is a threatening truth. The story of Santa and the elves provides a non-threatening alternative to the story of the coming of God into the world. Santa doesn’t demand much except a passable week of good behavior close to Christmas; but God sees through our souls with the Creator’s eye and longs for us to live up to the capabilities with which he created us.

In order for the coming of the baby Jesus to be good news and not bad news for us, we too have to re-orient our lives. It will mean thinking of ourselves as owned by and submissive to God, as opposed to the freedom-loving autonomous moral agents most Americans conceive themselves to be. It will mean thinking of the world as a holy, flawed place, as opposed to the romantic ideas of nature harbored by some, and as opposed to the unimportance placed on the world by others.

But even more than thinking differently, it will mean acting differently. It will mean decisively leaving behind old practices and embracing new ones, knowing that if we can get our hands and feet to act differently, our hearts and minds will catch up.

« Previous Page — Next Page »