Sunny Days in Heaven
Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven


Saturday, May 11, 2002  

Coals to Newcastle

What's with all the recent stories about pregnant women wanting to appear sexy? New lines of clothes for pregnant ladies who want to allure, and models talking about wanting to appeal while great with child. I remember Demi Moore on what, the cover of Vanity Fair?

I know there are fetishists who go in for this sort of thing, but I never thought of a pregnant woman as particularly attractive. It stirred no unconscious enzymes. In fact, it made me feel protective and in awe. It made me recognize a certain holy and sacred beauty in her and life (which is not amorous inducing thinking).

When my wife was pregnant and we indulged, it left me feeling a little weird like carrying coals to Newcastle since the whole purpose of having sex had already been accomplished. The act felt redundant and a bit silly and sterile.

Plus, do we have to sexualize everything these days? Apparently so. Pornography seeps into everything now. Next up - Mary, Mother of God - One Hot Momma!

posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:53 AM |
 

Google

Megan McArdle ruined me. It never occurred to me to Google myself until I read about her favorite vanity project, but now I can say - I'm Number One! I'm Number One!

I Googled my name and came up #1 for it in THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD! WHOO-HOO!

I want to thank all the little people out there who linked to me. Without them this never could have happened. I want to thank my parents for naming me, but most of all - I deserve this. For far too long Mark Butterworth has been obscured and overlooked, hidden and ignored. My people have not been seen in Hollywood movies since Peter Butterworth (English actor) died. Nor since Charles Butterworth (American actor?) was seen no longer in 30's and 40's movies. We've waited a long time for this, but by God we're here at last!!! Mark Butterworth has arrived! I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille.

I'm in six out of the top twelve sites including (lest you forget) #1 #1 #1 !!!!

posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:35 AM |
 

O tempora, O mores

I sadly read at Amy Welborn's blog that she is a divorced/annulled Catholic. I had thought she was otherwise.

Why am I sad, since this is none of my business, really?

Well, she writes, "Jesus' words in the New Testament about divorce and the reality of human frailty, which means, the way I see it, that some marriages are not indeed, "joined by God." They're joined solely by the stubborn, deaf wills of human beings who ignore the voice of God in their consciences and succumb to other pressures, both internal and external, to wed someone they know, in their heart, is not the right person. Annulment is the way the Roman Catholic Church is presently trying to recognize that reality."

What makes me sad is what I would call a false notion of reality and the nature of men and women - the idea that only some men and women are right for each other.

What I believe Jesus knew when he stated that divorce is unequivocally a sin, is that no man or woman is wrong for each other if they have compassion and an honest love of truth; that prayer (the love of God) can make all things right; that remarriage (where children are involved) may be the worst possible thing either partner can do to them.

There came a point in my own life when God informed my conscience that it was more than possible for me to love any woman because my wife was every woman; just as my child is every child to me. Just as I could never divorce my child, I could never divorce my wife. Not for any reason. There is simply no pain or trial too unbearable for such a recourse on my part.

My wife might decide not to bear me or her child, that would not be in my control. My wife might act in a manner that was insupportable and required separation for health and safety on my part, but divorce? No longer a possibility once I understood the truth from Jesus' point of view.

Malachi, speaking for God, states, "I hate divorce." Well, God is a forgiving sort and not a hater, but it is never his will that people hear "the voice of God in their consciences" tell them they have married the wrong person.

I can imagine God trying to inform one that they ought to think through their desires, but once decided, God would seek to heal division - not sever relationship. For who knows better than God what love people are capable of; what insight, what consolations, what blessings and grace he has available to mitigate hardship and frustration. The price may be pain, but better pain now than regret later.

If Amy has said, "I sinned. I couldn't trust God. I was selfish, disordered, and childish. I was irreligious and spiteful," I wouldn't be as saddened. But rather, she claimed that it was the "stubborn, deaf wills" of both which joined rather than separated them.

People get married for the wrong reasons all the time, but my experience is that anything broken can be healed if two people will it for the sake of others. Of course, if one will not, then the other is left alone to struggle through the healing process.

There is no marriage that can't be reconciled. What is not possible for Man, is possible for God. I know. I'm living proof of it.

Furthermore

Louder Fenn kicks in his two cents worth on divorce and annullment here.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:52 AM |


Friday, May 10, 2002  

First things first

Emily at Fool's Folly (link on right) at the start of a blog on another matter states, "I would say that as Catholics, we must consider every passage in the Bible in the context of the whole work of Scripture and the tradition of the Church."

This sounds sensible and seems reasonable for a Christian to say, but if we are interested in Jesus and his manner of thinking and life, we would have to disagree with it and suggest that our first duty is to examine it against the light of Truth, God's will, being, and thinking.

Jesus, while nominally a Jew and loyal to the traditions of his people to a certain extent, was certainly no slave to Scripture or Tradition. If Jesus wasn't, why should we be?

Emily's underlying assumption is that she possesses all of the truth (in the form of the RCC) and thus has no need of further examination to determine whether that is so or not. Reason does not support her conclusion or premise. And we know that Reason can never contradict God since that would be absurd.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 3:04 PM |
 

Hey! What am I? Chopped Liver?

Rod Dreher at NRO mentions Catholic blogs again and leaves me out!

That's because I'm kind of the crazy uncle in the basement of Catholic theology which makes me, yes, chopped liver.

But let us examine reality for a moment. The Church considers itself to possess truth. But this is a truth which must be examined to be determined, and if the Church is unable to examine whether what it believes is actually true or not, how can it claim to be the truth? A paradox, no? So how can I be a crazy uncle in the basement if all I ask for is an intellectually honest examination of truth and reality?

And if an organization claims to know the truth, but is afraid to examine its premises, how does that make a member disloyal? Isn't our first loyalty to Jesus and God love of Truth?

Sadly, there is not one single claim or argument that the Church makes on its own behalf apart from the resurrection of Jesus that can't be shredded to bits and reduced to absurdity. In fact, Paul shreds them all (including the one he wished to remain an exception, the Atonement; but his own argument does that in also).

Someone may try to explain to me, though, how our "freedom in Christ" means lack of freedom in thought, reason, and interpretation.

Furthermore

A great problem for Christians (and others in various pursuits) is that once a person chooses to identify themselves with a group or position, they develop a vested interest in what that group or position maintains; whereas Truth is different. I have no vested interest in the logic of 1+1=2 except that I must prefer the logic and rationality of such a statement as opposed to illogical and irrational statements that have no factuality. I am interested in Truth by nature of my sentient existence; but I have no 'vested' interest in the success, support, hopes, fears, or claims of any group which extends beyond that which is demonstrable.

The same with Jesus. If I know that Jesus is God, resurrected from human being, then I know something which is true and demonstrably so; but is a somewhat different manner than simple arithmetic. It is demonstrably so because 1) it is relevent to all human beings; and 2) is discernible to all sensible people; and 3) is revealed to any who sincerely wish to know.

Do we want to teach people how to think or to believe?

A number of people have noted a serious difference between modern Christianity and Islam when a few try to tar Christians with the same brush of fundamentalism as Islamic fanatics. The difference between the two is real, but a history lesson shows that the difference is merely a matter of time and not place. Christianity was at one time as fanatically intolerant and violent as Islam is now.

The history of the Church as Institution is not one of saints, but of vested interests. It has survived because of saints, not in spite of mediocrity and evil doing (but the same can be said for any religion or cult that extends beyond the death of its founder).

But I have yet to meet or study a saint who has been able to honestly examine the bulk of his or her prejudices and premises regarding truth and the Church. Meister Eckhart comes closest (but he was excommunicated as a heretic after his death).

P.S.

This article in Crisis about Christianity and its heresy battles and witch hunts goes far to illustrate fanatical intolerance and violence of a not so long ago Church.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 2:19 PM |
 

Poem from a Sunny Day

I don't rise to heaven like Elijah
not because I can't but because I won't.
I think I should, but I have no such might.
God saves man from despair and shows a way
to heaven; then he sets him down again
in folly and in tedium to brood
on sin and love. When does this brooding stop
with innocence restored? If not on earth,
then when in heaven? Is there any end
of guessing what our limits are; or hopes?

When men are left alone, they have no peace.
When God abandons us, time is morose.
A man redeemed is glad despair is gone,
yet, he later tires, too, of dancing.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:23 AM |
 

Thought for a Sunny Day (from my book, Contentions)

75

I believe that Jesus suffered death to prove to us the power of love and the meaning of it.

I do not think his death had anything to do with a debt owed that we couldn't pay. This, to me, is convoluted First century theology - pure metaphor. Not fact.

I also find that we characterize human evil as satanicly prompted because the human will which overrides all common sense, decency, propriety, goodness, and justice seems supernaturally powerful.

It is supernaturally powerful. It comes from God. He shares his freedom and will with us. He doesn't give us a diluted version of freedom and will (or being). How could he? It wouldn't be freedom then. He does limit the effect of our will in many respect, though.

1) We cannot annihilate our being - we are immortal as God is. 2) We suffer death so that our freedom no longer can directly affect others; and it serves notice to us that we are creature - not gods. 3) Other people and their freedom interferes with our own, so to speak, and causes us to limit our own actions.

The freedom we have to choose evil (or follow misguided desires and reasoning) is from a will of immense power since Will itself is of supernatural origin. It is no wonder then that human desire of self-exaltation is so great a delusion.

The instinct of preserving Self is probably our most intense and basic one. It is so great that only God can guide us in overcoming it. Only love can demonstrate that fear is useless and only trust (faith) can prevail against it. But before we can trust Love, we must experience it. To experience it, we must open our minds, our hearts, and our memories.

If we don't do this, we die. We are dead people: the walking wicked and wounded.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:20 AM |


Thursday, May 09, 2002  

New Link

I've linked to Roy Jacobsen and his Dispatches from Outland over on the right.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 11:18 PM |
 

Common Sense (or why I like this woman)

I have tried to teach my daughter to think and question as I hear Amy Welborn doing by asking obvious questions or making what should be obvious observations about life.

Her blog which takes down an essay that asserts that 50's Catholics created a society that allowed for secrecy and shame in children who were molested by priests rather than tell their parents and wreck their faith is clearly nonsense as Amy points out.

I was molested at 14 by a man outside a Catholic church (but that had nothing to do with it). Shame made me keep it secret. Shame and anger at my own stupidity. I had been like a deer in the headlights - frozen and in shock. I was paralyzed. Later I blamed myself for this paralysis, having no idea that children and young people haven't a clue what to do. We are like young puppies submitting to an alpha male. We role over on our backs automatically.

Now I hear various Cardinals and Bishops talking about the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia as if the latter isn't so bad, and that young people are less defenseless and may even participate or invite such events. They make the same distinction between a priest molesting a 16 year old girl on a camping trip and touching a child. As if the girl knew what to do and shares some responsibility.

But I tell you, there are people (women perhaps) in their 50's who are innocent enough and trusting enough to not have any hardened skills at deflecting a predator. Does that make them stupid, foolish, or partly responsible?

Amy nails the fact that it is not necessarily culture or conditioning which makes children and young people afraid to speak up. It is shame and horror. In fact, sometime after being molested, I eventually forgot the whole incident and never recalled it or spoke about it until five or six years ago. I am 49. It wasn't a conscious decision to forget it, either. I never said, "I will not think about this again." I just forgot it out of some inner compulsion to bury it. And it would have taken an army of counselors to get me to explain what that man had done to me in open court. I was that ashamed and defiled.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 3:30 PM |
 

I am again corrected

Roy at Dispatches from Outland corrects my previous statement to read "Creeds and formal constitutions preserve organized bodies and institutions, but can destroy reliance on Truth..."

Ahh, much better. Thanks, Roy. Does that mean I should go back and fix it? But then if anyone reads it later, they'll wonder what Roy was thinking about in correcting what didn't need correction. Follow that everyone? But I will go back and edit the blog to make it say what Roy and I both agree on what should be written. (Is this how the Bible got redacted? I wonder.)

Oh, and very good analogy about his wife, knowledge of said wife, and intimacy in relationship.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 2:39 PM |
 

.A Hard Taskmaster

Emily Stimpson at Fool's Folly takes me to task (lightly) by mentioning that, "The whole history of humanity is 'a seamless and unbroken line of the most egregious corruption and evil.' "

She's right, of course, and we may simply be ignorant of similar histories in Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism; yet, I think we all (and past peoples) expected better from the Church. Why? Because great claims demand great proofs. Also, we have a higher standard imposed on us. If we have the absolute Truth as we claim, then we are obligated to a higher level of behavior. Why? Because great gifts impose greater responsibilities; and what greater gift is there than Truth itself in its fullness? To whom much is given, much is expected (as someone we love once said).

Even our enemies expect us to be better than themselves because we insist that the Truth makes us free, "saved", healed "by his blood", reborn and holy saints. Plus, blaming it all on the Devil becomes a rather weak admittance of our fragility - that is, that our faith is so tenuous and limpid that the Evil One makes quick work of our slight resolves and wishful beliefs.

I don't think the "but we're only human and fallible" argument flies very far with God or Jesus. Forgiveable, we are, of course, but not as a rationalizers.

Paul wrote that if Jesus didn't rise, then our morals and ethics or good intentions are meaningless because what we essentially believe is a fraud. The obverse of it is that if we do essentially believe in the risen Jesus, then our morals, ethics and good intentions should have real force. Otherwise, the Church simply becomes another stream in the "broad highway that leads to destruction."

At the same time, we should recall that excellence does not demand perfection (Henry James), and that faith is a process in which we make improvements as we go. We don't expect babies to fly. Nor should the Church be one vast nursery and day care center either. We expect some level of competence, maturity, honesty, and integrity.

Also, as much as I love and admire our human ability to make metaphors, analogies, and symbols, I find myself becoming more skeptical with each passing year over litanies like Emily records of the Church and its priests representing either this or that aspect of reality, God and our relationships.

It may be useful and beautiful to analogize our relationship with each other as a Body, and that Body with God as a Bride and so on, but at the end of the day we live with ordinary facts of being and not heightened or exalted feelings of reverence and awe. Special or gracious feelings about our faith, God, communion, and love are very well and good, but they are not permanent and are only important in passing; in helping us move on to newer or more comprehensive insights. Over time, gilding the lily gets to be a bit over much. Eventually, our experience of Truth ceases to be emotional, and becomes natural (or rather the supernatural becomes an ordinary awareness in us).

Anyway, I guess the question of when is the Church too evil to do people enough good can only be settled by individuals deciding for themselves. I pray that those people choose wisely and temperately, and not by looking for an "out" from religion and our obligations to God and each other.





posted by Mark Butterworth | 2:11 PM |
 

Bar Code or Bender?

A number of folks have commented on the new EU flag design and proclaimed it hideous, but I like it. It's really quite wild and colorful, and different. A whole new take on flags just as the original Stars and Stripes changed everything about flags, too.

My only problem is that the red stripes seem to cause optical illusion clashings. At least it does on the computer screen.

Furthermore

Prior to the U.S. flag, all other national flags represented either a family (with crests and heraldic symbolism) or Christianity (Great Britains triple Cross Union Jack). The U.S. flag was abstract with colors symbolizing qualities and starts and stripes numerically representing member states.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 3:15 AM |
 

A History of Shame

A number of Catholic blogers have been doing a bit of history study and revealing that such gross sexual scandals are nothing new to the RCC. They mean to put the situation into perspective; and that's all well and good. Their hope is that the RCC will recover, reform, and move onward as it always has despite such evil doers in its midst.

But I have to say that the history lessons are doing me more harm than good, for what I and others may notice is that in the RCC we get a seamless and unbroken line of the most egregious corruption and evil doing in the history of religion (perhaps).

The history of the RCC is of continual scandal in high places punctuated with occasional revivals by a few saints from time to time like Francis. It is a very sorry history and leads more to contempt for the institution than towards pride and respect for its miraculously long legs of survival and reverence.

One is tempted to wonder if all Catholics are fools or not. I know I'm wondering and I'm a Catholic with a deep appreciation for its worship history and core message, truth, and morality.

Furthermore.

But as I've said before, great religions and the RCC have enormous cultural inertia in them. The train will keep on rolling no matter what I or anybody else says; no matter how much criticism it gets. There's something amazing, wonderful, and a little bit scary about that. Once established, a religion will never die it seems.

I have a blog coming up, though, that illustrates how Jesus trumps every other claim on truth. It's not exactly a Christianity vs. the rest, but that the truth of Jesus beats everything else because it is true and demonstrable.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:52 AM |
 

Priorities?

Cardinal Law says, "I relied upon those who assisted me in this matter to do all that was appropriate." But admits he did not follow up on the accusations and confessions.

I hate to be snide, but let's see - policeman commits crimes and the Chief ignores the problem? President lies under oath and subverts justice and the Congress pretends it doesn't matter? Drunken child smashes car and the parent shrugs his shoulder? Priest rapes children, males in particular, and is passed along then forgotten about? Which of these things is true?

Only one, of course, is really true. A church of indifferent priests who care less about evil they don't have to answer for.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:44 AM |


Wednesday, May 08, 2002  

Thought for a Sunny Day (from my book, Contentions)

76
How is it possible for a man to be tempted to sin, but never sin? A man may have the thought but not the action. This is purity of heart.

Is it possible for God to become a man and have the thought of sinning? I think the greater the love (prayer and self-control) a man has, the inclination to sin, even to think of sinning, diminishes greatly - perhaps even enough to vanish entirely.

The Temptation in the desert is a perfect example of what awakening to Godhood (for a man) entails. Many such prophets succumbed to those three temptations. Jesus did not.

Jesus did not hear that he was God's only beloved Son, but that he was a beloved child of God (as all people may hear if they listen closely).

Jesus' message was love - the kingdom of heaven and how to enter it. He had no particular mission to accomplish, no messianic quest as the Suffering Servant. (he would not have characterized himself in the third person as a Somebody.) He merely wanted to talk to people about life and love, peace and wisdom, faith and heaven.

He went to Jerusalem because he had toured the countryside with limited results. He was ready to try his teaching in a larger forum before many more ears. He was also ready for whatever his critics might throw at him to discredit his wisdom and humiliate his intelligence.

He did not go to the Gentiles because they did not accept monotheism, a personal God, which makes it difficult to get to step two - God's reign. The Jews already accepted God, so his conceptions had a foundation for discussion.

The human capacity for self-delusion even among the most intelligent, devoted, and studious of religious people is incredible. Add to that the delusions of religious people who think goodness means never drawing boundaries against sin or being obliged to moral behavior. I constantly encounter both camps - the dogmatic and the morally uncommitted.

We have done to Jesus what the Jews did to Moses - making an inhuman icon of him beyond human reach or comprehension - reducing Truth to vain formulas of creed and symbolism.

If Jesus was a special man who became God, then no one can become that or equal him. Since God cannot expect people to become the impossible - go ahead and claim salvation and a place in heaven without much effort, and leave prayer, virtue, and communion alone.

There had to be spiritual crises in Jesus' life - testing and waiting which he found unbearable and agonizing - which is why he went to John the Baptist. To learn something meaningful, something critical; or to see for himself what being a prophet was all about.

He rejected John's message of anger and wrath. That message became attached to him, though, and found its way into the Gospels. The good man has such little personality that he becomes a kind of tabula rasa for others to project features of their own upon. Thus every man who cares to, writes their own Jesus.

Do we ever get a purer Jesus in portrait? I believe so. The more selfless and one in God we become, the more resemblance the disciple makes to Jesus as a man on earth - the more correspondence there is. The purer the link, the purer the works and fruit, the man and manner.

I could be wrong (and most people certainly think so), but Jesus' primary focus on the kingdom of heaven demonstrates to me that Jesus had a vision of what heaven and heaven on earth was like - a realm of perfect love and loving - and that this is what he wanted people to know about and keep their hope alive for.

Jesus is alive and risen. He is God, but this is meaningless unless we follow him and allow him to murder our selfhood, prejudices, and cherished notions. Most people never get far on this road in life. Even those committed to a life of love rarely get past self, dogma, and prejudicial opinions about faith and truth.

Hell, like Heaven, is a real but primarily speculative place. It is indeed a place where the gnawing worm of self and self-hatred never dies. But the idea of Judgment Day and various pictures are not valid as actualities but metaphors since Jesus never saw hell or heaven as a man. It was beyond his power to visit. It was part of his limitation as all men are limited - except faith and insight ever grows to make the real known within - not as pictures but as certain knowings - revelations, if you like - but that's too loaded a term.

It's a kind of gnosis but not Gnosticism (or varieties of dualistic cosmology).

posted by Mark Butterworth | 4:55 PM |
 

Holy Smokes!

Martin Farkus at Zounds wants to quit smoking, especially after having read what the Bible has to say (wisely, of course) about living, "Do not court death by the errors of your ways, nor invite destruction through the work of your hands"

I was finally able to quit about five years ago. I have two pieces of advice for Martin; 1) the Patch. It works pretty well with a tapering down scheme, and 2) I couldn't quit until God willed it for me; and he didn't will it for me when I wanted it and thought the timing was right, but until he decided the time was right (in the fullness thereof).

For the life of me, I couldn't understand why God wouldn't help me quit when I wanted to (and it was surely his will I be free of that addiction). But God has a timetable of healing for each person and a plan which he does not deviate from simply because we think we have a better idea. So Martin, don't be too distressed if your desire doesn't coincide exactly with God's in your plan to quit.

For me, my despair at ever quitting convinced me that I wasn't going to bother facing failure again. It was simply too upsetting to keep failing. So I quit quitting smoking. I gave up the cause. Then after about six months or so, I felt the slightest tap on my mental shoulder - a slight voice telling me: "try again." "No, I won't. I'm tired of failing. It's too demoralizing to fail every single time. Forget it."

"Try again," I heard softly.

I sighed, "All right, but I'm not promising anything to anybody, least of all myself." And I had cried buckets over previous failures, but I gave it one more try with the Patch and, blessed be God, it worked. Never had a smoke since and have been only rarely interested in smoking again. It doesn't even rate as temptation.

Keep in mind the old saw, "Want to make God laugh? Tell him your plans." Even when we make great plans for healthy self-improvements, God is the deciding factor. May you be blessed now, Martin, and that what you want is exactly what God wants for you, too, this moment. Best wishes.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 3:51 PM |
 

Power to the People, indeed

Emily Stimpson at Fool's Folly reviews an idea about various groups wanting to make the church more democratic with lay committees and quotes Michael Novak as pointing out that such committees aren't very likely going to be very liberal, or free and easy with reforms.

I've noticed that, too. People are inherently conservative in the mass (weak pun, sort of intended). I have to laugh when I hear the various peaceniks and eco-nuts talking about "community and direct democracy." The power to the people sort of thing because we all know what the "people" are like - self-interested, but also conservative and freedom loving. Direct democracy means that agenda driven ideologues always lose the argument.

Even as much as I completely support pro-life inititiatives, I realize it's an uphill battle against the inertia of public conservatism which is as likely to preserve a bad status quo as a good one.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 3:26 PM |


Tuesday, May 07, 2002  

Oh, Oh, oh what a girl! (If you knew Amy, like I know Amy)

Amy Welborn makes a point today that I would second in a somewhat different way. (I've been meaning to mention this, but I always forget until someone reminds me.)

Amy writes: "I’ve heard too much optimism. I’ve heard too much trumpeting of a moment of grace, of a cleansing, of a purifying and too much confidence that out of this, a stronger Church will arise." and concludes, "I, for one, cannot rejoice in a new Springtime for my Church that is built on the destroyed innocence of children."

What I have in mind is the tiresome sentimentality and naiveté of people always insisting "God will make something good come of this." As if that settles it. All's well. No worries, mate. God will make everything fine.

Except it doesn't work that way. Suffering is not do-over, make up for, we're wiser now.

I'm with Shakespeare on this, "he jests at scars that never felt a wound."

God can certainly heal us of our distress at suffering, but he does not often restore us or make it all "just go away." Nor is healing a simple matter of a sudden wave of grace (kiss the boo boo) and it all melts and becomes wisdom.

Plus, if we have to give God credit for all the good that comes from bad, we have to give him the blame, too. It's called theodicy. The question of evil and suffering in life. One of the Prophets mentions that God is the author of both good and evil in the world. But that's another blog.

Anyway, I get heartily sick and tired of sentimentalities that make God out to be just an absent minded Daddy, who wakes up from his reveries when he hears a child screaming, and then only runs over to say, "there, there, little one. Lost a leg? Well, I'll give you a blessing for it." (Like a tooth fairy exchanging one thing for another. The Cross is a cross because it hurts and is not so easily waved away. "Why have you forsaken me!!!!!" is what happens; not, thanks for the memories.)

Here's a line a friend of mine (who has more maladies and medical crises than you can shake a stick at) has occasion to hear from sympathetic parishioners - "God must love you so much to give you so much suffering." Yes, would that God might love you so much, too.

But I'm being peevish. Blame Blogger for it. See below.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 3:47 PM |
 

Thinking and Truth

Dispatches from Outland has another blog in a series on Christian spirituality which asks (and answers) why don't Christians make much progress in their Christ-likeness?

My own take on the matter has to do with some of what Roy says, " Saving faith has become mere mental assent to correct doctrine. Also, while the Bible is professed to be highly regarded, it seems to have little or no functional authority."

Dogmatism and doctrinalism is both church preserving and faith killing. Creeds and formal constitutions preserve organized bodies and institutions, but can destroy reliance on Truth (God) in the long run. Doctrinalism becomes a substitute for thinking about Truth (God).

I have often observed that people can be extremely logical and rational in their work or various analyses of problems or conditions, yet fail to use that same logic on matters of belief. Not simply religious folks, either. Atheists are some of the worst ideologues since they will insist on the logic of science and the rigors of abstract thought, yet consistently refuse to recognize that - 1) Something can never come from nothing, and 2) a contradiction in terms always occurs in their "logic" when reduced to its absurd conclusions.

But religious people will often say, "I've got this book and that's all I need. I got it from God and that settles it."

Except great claims demand great proofs. Christianity has, on the one hand, the greatest proof of all on the resurrection of Jesus - his willingness to demonstrate the reality of that truth over and over to sincere inquirerers; but on the other hand, this experiential "proof" is then extended to account for other claims as well; and logic, reason, and truth will not necessarily support the additional claims.

The Bible is an Authority, but in a mighty perverse way. It illustrates all that is possible with God and what Man has gleaned from his encounter with Him.

(Editor's note. I had so much more nearly completed when Blogger destroyed it. Sigh. I can't reconstruct it with the same energy. I had been smarter before when I used to write my drafts on my word processor before turning it over to Blogger, but I got used to trying to write quick, short blurbs while posting and getting away with it generally. But sometimes a brief blog becomes an essay and that's when Blogger gets you. Even then I try to frequently Copy as I go - thus you have the above - but you get on a roll and forget and that's when it gets you. And all for using the BACKSPACE key. Can you think of anything more frustrating and infuriating? Well, yes, but this is a supreme annoyance.)

posted by Mark Butterworth | 2:25 PM |
 

Poem for a Sunny Day

I have seen the beauty of a woman:
the softness of her smile and voice, the fall
and tumble of her hair, her tender eyes.
I have watched the sway of her hips, the dance
of her feet, and swell of her breasts as she
proceeds along a path, around a room,
across a strand of sandy beach with child
in hand or babe wrapped in her arms.

I've seen
her pray, prepare and serve a meal, and put
a house in order. She has woven cloth
of finest silk or linen dyeing them
with colors fast and brilliant, warm or cool.

I've contemplated the line of her jaw,
the point of her chin, the arch of her brow,
the flare of her nostrils, smoothness of cheek,
the shape and color of her lips - that I
can only say I am in awe of her;
for she is beautiful and radiant.
I marvel at God who created her
for himself, for herself, and me; who made
the woman I should love, in whom to know
and always find my bliss in her embrace.

Once I saw God, my father, face to face,
and I knew unsurpassing joy. One time
I felt the Spirit strip me of my flesh
and lift me into heaven's love. And once
I watched the son of God anoint me while
I trembled sick with my impurity,
and joyfully humiliated by
his mercy and compassion. I have known
God's kisses and his tenderness that saves;
I've been exalted, yet, I've also seen
the beauty of a woman - that I know,
existing glad, she's glorious of God.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:47 AM |
 

Thought for a Sunny Day (from my book, Contentions)

78
What is justice to God? Most people assume it is punishment for evil, reward for good.

Humanity was punished collectively for the act of Adam and Eve. No forgiveness was possible until Jesus "paid" for the guilt in blood.

Crazy.

Even Scripture has Jesus offer a system of rewards and punishments - "store up treasure in heaven", the sheep and goats will be separated at Judgment Day, do good works.

If this is what Jesus offered, he was wrong; a victim of his society and conditioning.

What are we left with, then? We have a creator God, but we don't know why things went so wrong for us except that by giving us his power of will and freedom to choose on behalf of the flesh or the heart - somehow we ended up severely compromised and victims of an endless sequence of follies and their effects passed on.

If God is only about love and patience, then Hell is merely separation from the kingdom of Heaven. If God ever reveals himself to all his children, the story ends happily for all. If God allows all his children the same freedom now as later - resentment, pride, obstinacy, and stupidity keeps most out of Heaven.

God is not a punisher, though. He invites us to engage him and learn how to trust him. He doesn't punish us for not doing so. We punish ourselves and make a hostile and perverse world. As Aquinas said, a disordered mind is its own punishment.

The Gnostics, in some respects, were a few who seemed to see how "knowledge" of God was essential to faith and prayer; yet most of them probably abused the concept, too, as some other Christians complained. (But then those Christians were no great shakes at fidelity to moral perfection, either.)

Gnostic dualism and cosmologies attempted to answer the question of how man and the world fell into evil and error. The question is unanswerable. It demands that God submit to interrogation and reveal what he does not reveal except that everything he does is done in love and in patient understanding. (I almost eliminated the word 'understanding' because it pictures God standing under us rather than the reverse. Yet, on further thought, I realized that his humility doesn't reckon such degrees or dominance. He is pleased to stand under his creature if that is what we need. God, in fact, has no such quality of humility since he has no virtues to practice. He is not self-aware of his goodness. He simply is.)

God acts miraculously and enters into the world to reveal one thing: that he loves.

Proof of love leads us to realize we are immortal - that God who is love will not destroy or punish. What he creates, he loves and created forever. Anything less would be unmitigated evil and cruelty to rational beings. Nor is it malicious to allow what he has created to act evil or suffer evil.

Will Jesus come again? He does come again to everyone who opens their heart to him; and he must appear as wrath to the lost and proud in their moment of death. Pure love has that quality which can invoke dread in the fearful.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:41 AM |


Monday, May 06, 2002  

Lost in the Stratosphere

Can't blog today. I'm behind on my chores.

posted by Mark Butterworth | 3:27 PM |

links
archives