an old email (idolatry)

the following is an email sent off to dave clark and soundview last summer. it's definitely an instance of Scripture being a double-edged sword. quite a sharp one. flesh wound inducing, really.

---

So I have two main reasons for writing this email:
1. Conveying the overwhelming love for you folks and what God is doing at S/V that He stirs in my heart - the continuing affirmation that you are beloved members of the Church and that Christ is at the center of your work: the only thing that ensures its eternal endurance and status of current praise/glory/exhibition before the Throne.
2. Following up on a brief conversation I had with Blain (?) whilst facilitating. Since I don't have direct access to him, I hope you don't mind being an intermediary. And I'm sure you'll enjoy the rambling foolishness that is to follow.

To recall that setup, we were out at the ropes course and I asked how the LIT Bible study had been going. Blain responded by saying that it had been really good/deep; he then began to summarize what they'd been discussing - something about (and I know I'm butchering this here) which sins are really 'the worst' in God's eyes. The sort that will elicit a "What the hell (literally) were you doing?!" on the day of judgement. Blain continued by noting how Russell suggested that pride occupied the darkest role in the categorization of sin. I responded with some skepticism about the usefulness of such a discussion (in my experience, these kinds of discussion are objectively interesting but tend to lead to the actual practice of self-righteousness and self-absolution) and we agreed that the only Person really qualified to say anything objective about such a hierarchy was God Himself.

In the interest of actually being responsible, we had to focus on transfers and harness checks at that point and so we left it at that. The subject has been on my mind a bit since then, namely ascertaining what God has to say about 'truly detestable sin.'

Oh, and I'm going to ignore the passage in Matthew 12:22-32 where Jesus refers to 'blaspheming the Holy Spirit' as an unforgivable sin, namely because I'm not at all sure what that objectively means. But it should be noted.

---

My overall claim is this: the sin that God truly detests and which underlies nearly all other sin is idolatry. This may sound strange to postmoderns who can walk the streets of Seattle and not see anything that resembles a physical incarnation of a deity, but go with me here. We'll come back to the relation to pride by the end.

As Blain and I agreed upon, the only Person Who has Authority to objectively answer this question is God Himself. Therefore we will dispense with all hypotheticals and intuitive psychology/spirituality (that we so often engage in, often led by the Spirit but with the danger of being ungrounded) and go straight to Scripture and God's messages to His people.

- Consider the Ten Commandments. In the canonical Christian reading, the first and second commandments comprise a condemnation of idolatry of any form and an affirmation of the centrality of Yahweh as God of the Israelite nation. There idolatry is given the definition of worshiping anything other than the Creating God. Therefore idolatry is much more expansive than bowing down before a carved pig or reveling in front of a golden calf. More to come on this soon.
- The Israelite nation consistently walked away from God throughout the Prophetic period of the Old Testament. The Prophetic books of Scripture as such are much less about the practice of prophecy as a Biblical version of fortunetelling as they are God's use of messengers to call His people out on how much they were walking away from Him and their resultant need for repentance. Curiously, the most consistent and overhwleming call God makes to His people through the prophets is to stop comitting idolatry. Some of the most gripping and powerful sections of the old Prophets are found in Ezekiel's (Chapter 16 primarily) description of Israel as the bride-of-God, whoring herself out to the gods of her neighbors. Of all the rebellion that His people engage in, God's primary concern is their consistent and blatant idolatry. A thorough study of idolatry in the Old Testament will pull up this theme over and over again and affirm its status as God's central complaint in the midst of a cornucopia of sins.
- Idolatry is even worse. It can almost always be identified as the core of why we sin. Consider the word of Paul in 1 Corinthians 10, writing to a church that is, to put it mildly messed up (my church is currently going through the whole book; the sermon series is accurately titled 'Christians gone wild'): getting drunk during communion, sleeping with each other in ways that freaked out the Romans (a son with his mother for example), scorning the poor, &c. I quote from the NASB where Paul writes about how to overcome the temptations that face them:

'No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, Who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.
Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.'
- I Corinthians 10:13-15

Paul's response to conquering the massive amount of soon-to-be-repentant sin present in the Corinthian church is to tell them to flee idolatry.
Keep in mind that the Corinthians don't have statues of gods that they worship after singing hymns to Jesus. They aren't sacrificing food/people/anything to carved idols & such and in fact some factions therein are quite worried about eating food sacrificed by pagans to idols (see the beginning of Chapter 9). My point is this: the command to flee idolatry seems to drop out of nowhere and seems almost completely irrelevant.
Here Paul correctly identifies the root of the Corinthians' many sins: idolatry - the construction of a miniature god which you satisfy so as to absolve you from your personal conception of hell. Examples:
1.
Personal hell: loneliness, the absence of community, being unloved
Functional saviour: community and the presence of friends
Acts of service/worship to the saviour: going out of your way to put aside your own time so as to be able to spend time with people [and thereby avoid loneliness]
Sin derivatives: people-pleasing, covetousness and envy, falsehood and lies
2.
Personal hell: being single
Functional saviour: relationships with a significant other
Acts of service/worship to the saviour: seeking out relations for the sake of a relationship; maintaining a bad relationship out of fear of life without close contact
Sin derivatives: ignoring the will of God (rebellion), lust, adultery, deep lies
3.
Personal hell: not being respected
Functional saviour: being shown respect by people
Acts of service/worship to the saviour: demonstration of how worthy of respect you are by being uber-responsible
Sin derivatives: extreme anger, violence, murder, self-centeredness
4.
Personal hell: working too hard/not having free time
Functional saviour: time off, relaxation, vacation
Acts of service/worship to the saviour: half-hearted presence in work/needed deeds; anxious waiting (and thus disengagement of the heart) of rest time
Sin derivatives: sloth, anger, etc.
5.
Personal hell: being lazy, in perception and/or fact
Functional saviour: work-a-holism
Acts of service/worship to the saviour: large numbers of hours invested in work; disregarding your personal needs in the interest of getting more work done
Sin derivatives: self-righteousness, pride, anger

I could go on.

Note one of the common themes to all of the idolatry forms listed above: they are about the pursuit of and enslavement to *good things*. Community is a blessed thing; a God-centered relationship is an encouraging sight and a soothing presence to all; respect is a deep-seeded need in both sexes and all human interaction; rest is a need mandated by God Himself; Paul writes about how our work is to be commendation to the unbelieving world. Thus we see idolatry as the giving over of ourselves to *good* things that God gives, rather than to the God Who created them.

Oh, and about pride.. C.S. Lewis identifies pride in 'Mere Christianity' as perhaps the darkest/blackest sin. That may very well be true, but pride must first be traced back to the idolatry and worship of the self. As such, it is a form of idolatry (which Scripturally is why we see a handful of references to pride and a ton for idolatry).

Anyway, I think that's enough for now. That's a lot of rambling to walk through. =p

Love you all in Christ. May His chief love descend upon and surround you all.

---

obedience or rebellion: that's the choice. and it is perilous!

when people say 'persistence,' they mean 'bryan johnson.'

dear reader, perhaps you are already acquainted with the truth and overwhelming reality of this statement. but perhaps you are not. and so the thought likely comes: 'from whence came such a claim!' ai! experience teaches much, and here we find a clinic rich in depth and meaning. what words can I use, what flourish and rhetoric employ to capture what can only beheld through direct communication. oh skeptical reader, I implore you to seek and find and thereby imitate. your hesitancy is naturally borne of ignorance that cannot be quenched by mere thought: you must encounter and imitate bryan johnson, understanding through volition. and there you will stand, unable to do any other!

my soul is still shaking from this most recent lesson. groggy and confused, it stirs like my flesh towards my cell phone; appalled and ignorant, it is confronted by the full force of persistence and 'lo it recoils! 'precious rest' it cries to no avail. battered and love-abused, it concedes like that corrupt judge and only then (in that choice!) finds what it senselessly beholds. the phone opens and strange words follow, speaking of celebration, happiness, and birthdays. what madness is this, that couples love to stubborness so strongly that the distinction disappears?

it is the madness of bryan johnson, revealed time and time again to all those humble enough to draw near and suffer at his hand. ah, but my reader, you must understand, you must surely understand! this suffering is a joyful burden like few others. take it on with willing heart and explore its depths.

---

ha! love ya bro.

---

and now for some don mcintyre, who we love and miss dearly, eagerly awaiting his return from the sovereign state of california.

I am the fisherman
the simple fisherman
very busy with my task
and my meager wage
I am a practical man
I don't chase rainbows
because I'm not very fit
for a man my age
did He know what He was saying?
the words don't sit comfortably
He said "follow Me."

I am the leprous man
filled with leprosy
I see how ugly I am
in every face I see
and I pray to know for just one moment
what it's like to feel
someone in love with me
and I'm so weary, weary
of the horror that's in everyone's eyes

"be cleansed" He said with power
"be cleansed" His glory shone
His eyes pierced through like sunshine piercing through the sea
my soul has been on fire
my world turned upside-down
ever since He spoke those words to me

I am the woman at the well
I wait religiously
for Messiah to bring me paradise
but it's taking so long
so I sell my loyalty
to any rich fool
who can pay the price
and I'm so thirsty, thirsty
for some water that will satisfy

"I AM" He said with power
"I AM" His glory shone
His eyes pierced through like sunshine piercing through the sea
my soul has been on fire
my world turned upside-down
ever since Messiah came to me

'I am wealthy'
'I have demons'
'I am paralyzed'
'I am sitting in a tax booth stealing from my own people'
'He delivers, He is healing'
'giving back my eyes'
'saying, "sell everything you have"'
'and "come and follow me!"'

I am the pharisee
I know my Bible
I'm working hard for God
and I'm not quite done
I've got questions for Him
maybe He will stumble
then we'll really see
just who's the righteous one
I've got plans to attend to
Who is this Who calls Himself a King?

"beware" He spoke with power
"beware" His glory shone
His eyes pierced through like sunshine piercing through the sea
my soul has been on fire
my world turned upside-down
ever since He spoke those words to me

I am the crippled man
my legs are worthless
what good is it
for me to be alive?
I tried to matter in this world
but it's all so pointless
Who is this Man
Who says to me, 'arise?'
'arise?'

---

on a total side note, life is assuredly getting more interesting. in a good way. yuppers.

okay, back to work.

to the God Who brings True Life in the form not of a concept or idol but Himself as both Truth and Life, we glory in Your present redemption.

life update schtuff

1. demyth. morality part ii will be coming shortly. a beautiful thing with writing is that it is often exploratory and you behold things that you did not foresee. and so it is here.
2. kj2 (i.e. the younger kj, kathryn anne jensen) graduates from high school tomorrow. if you know her and how to contact her, do so and give her proper congratulations. love on the katie kathryn.
3. in general, the family is very well. I am eager and proud to say that my parents have renewed their commitment and love for each other in a way I never thought possible in such a short timespan. humility and commitment provide the foundation for so much more.
4. the last two days of seriously pursued rest have been wonderful. amazing how much large volumes of sleep helps.
5. serious use of the word 'research' to describe my life begins tomorrow. thank God.

---

things on my mind/heart presently:
- soundview. particularly our young men. for too long there's been a sickness among us. I'm thinking primarily about the male lit program. the issues that seem the most obvious to me are as follows:
i. a vacillating lack of commitment.
ii. an absence of binding community.
iii. a general lack of initiative.
iv. little apparent hunger for character/integrity-development.
v. too much performance before women.
the first matter (commitment) is by far the most important for many reasons. I pray for a God-inspired, God-authored kick-to-the-ass to awaken the taking-the-Kingdom-seriously so desperately needed. simply yelling and/or shaming has nothing to do with God, for submission is assisted and begun by Him but accepted and loved by the Christian.
- I've been far too severe lately. it has been with fiery eyes that I've come to see some of the ferocity and severity of God, bringing with it confirmation of my own fire and intensity as given by God. however I have made indulgence of confirmation rather than looking for instruction and discipline. mercy and grace alongside fire and the sword: that is the picture of Jesus as He reveals Himself.
- what a life it would be where the heart actually knew its own state and acted accordingly. especially in relation to women. ha!
- Christ is unique in the following way: He commands us to something akin to an Absolute morality, but does not offer protection for our conscience. He does not suffer us to drift in the idolatry of subjective ethics any more than codified idolatrous Ethics. the question "who will command my conscience?" is laid waste and replaced with the monstrosity of unconditional love. and thus the first sin is undone and turned back upon itself.

---

man versus himself
man versus machine
man versus the world
mankind versus me
the struggles go on
the wisdom I lack
the burdens keep
piling up on my back
so hard to breathe
to take the next step
the mountain is high
I wait in the depths
yearning for grace
and hoping for peace
dear GOD INCREASE!

healing hands
of God have mercy on us
clean our souls once again
Jesus Christ!
Light of the world
burning bright
within our hearts forever
freedom means love
without condition
without a beginning or an end
here's my heart
let it be forever Yours
only You can make
every new day
seem so new

HALLELUJAH!

---

time to run.

to Christ the Perfect Redeemer, Who we Know without knowing, Whose Revelation subsumes and conquers our feeble knowledge, Who initiates, achieves, and completes Real submission, we cry out in Your love. amen.

demythologizing morality (part i.)

writing borne out of a recent conversation:

there are several issues at hand. they build upon each other and so we may as well begin sensibly. many of the following thoughts will feel like tautological statements, but I maintain that many of them pass beneath the vision of everyday life and should therefore be pointed out. moreover, many nearly definitional observations (most notably dostoevsky's 'without immortality..') still find considerable opposition among the supposedly educated.

i. the vacuity of morality. (or, ethics and criteria as expressions of preference) (or, the non-Value of a priori reasoning)

ii. totalitarianism as insight. (or, the corporate realization of non-binding ethics)

iii. ever-present idolatry. (or, the fundamentally religious expression of behaviour)

iv. the necessity of the ubermensch. (or, the contrasting roles of arbiter and Arbiter)

v. perilous choice. (or, why honest discussions between Christians and non-Christians employ the same data)

vi. the hope of Christ A. (or, the Absolute call to love)

vii. the hope of Christ B. (or, Salvation from the underground of the arbiter)

---

i. the vacuity of morality.

a. individual human conduct is self-governed by what we describe as either the ethical or the Ethical*, depending upon what the individual appeals to as the source or Source of its governance. this largely constitutes a definition with the additional note of free will; in other words, behaviour is either truly self-governed or bears the volitional appearance of self-governance. conduct which does not bear the volitional appearance of self-governance (an obvious example is a seizure) is not considered to emerge from the e/Ethical.

b. the criteria for evaluating behaviour/thoughts/emotions/et al are contained within the e/Ethical.

c. the ethical is an expression of preference alone. in other words, there is nothing binding about a particular ethical system. the selection of "first principles" from which a person derives his conduct is entirely up to the individual and summarizes this expression.

-> example: the governing value of science and modern philosophy is that self-contradiction is fatal, whether in a model for physical interactions or in the reconciliation of a person's values with their behaviour. but this principle must be proposed as an axiom rather than a piece of knowledge deduced from the cognito. the notion that a self-contradictory ethical system should be discarded relies upon a statement that is either axiomatic or flows from an axiom. that axiom embodies at least a piece of the preferential nature of a person's ethics.

d. the transition between any two ethical systems is therefore an expression of a change of preference and nothing else (my rhetoric is harsh here for a reason: romantic and 'progressive' idealism conceals this fact with words, and so with words the fact should be revealed so that it is seen clearly).

e. however, the transition from the Ethical to the ethical requires something more than a change in preference (for the presence of the ethical indicates preference). the transition should also be described as a rejection, for it also requires such a rejection of the Source that belied the Ethical. this rejection is more than a preference if and only if the Source exists in the Absolute sense. in either sense it constitutes an act of metaphysical rebellion against the (real or perceived) Absolute.
f. in either event, we have the possibility of a fundamental distinction between the ethical and Ethical: the absence or presence of rebellion against something larger than individual preference, in particular against the Absolute.

g. ethics does not have the capacity to find anything more than its own suppositions when confronted with any other ethics or Ethics. this applies at the level of theory and evaluation. it therefore hopelessly circular.

h. the same is true for Ethics if and only if the Source does not exist in the Absolute.

i. therefore only Ethics has the possibility of saying something Meaningful about anything. ethics and therefore morality are vacuous notions when they are taken to mean anything more than an individual's choice of supposition.
j. up to this point I have defined Ethics in relation to the perceived Absolute. we note that Ethics in relation to a false or nonexistent Absolute bears a precise resemblance to ethics. in other words, idolatrous Ethics are an expression of the ethical.
k. the statements above about non-idolatrous Ethics do not depend upon the human capacity to establish precise knowledge of the Absolute; at no point did they invoke epistemology or the question 'how do we *know* if the Absolute is True?' these matters are important but nonetheless secondary.
l. (summary) we find that the fundamental (existential) distinction between e/Ethical systems is a distinction between the Ethical rooted in an existent Absolute and any other e/Ethics. the latter represents preference, the former an expression of the True Absolute; transition between two systems of the latter reflects a change of preference, while transition from the former to the latter would be an act of rebellion against the Absolute in addition to such a change.
-> extension: this section is essentially tautological, but often rejected at the level of the question in (k.) that rejection is not a logical refutation but rather a statement of "it doesn't matter." this is fundamentally unilluminating and reflects a preference: that the Absolute must be confirmed Absolutely in order to be relevant. this statement must be recognized as an axiom and its products therefore suffer from the flaw of a priori reasoning. then the question is, why bring up this series of definitional statements in the first place? the answer: in order to maintain a clear understanding of human behaviour, we need to begin by demythologizing ethics/morality (thus the title of this piece). the use of the term is deliberate: any last vestige of importance other than preference assigned to the ethical bears the psychological function of a myth, one that must be recognized in order to see the regulation of conduct clearly.
-> extension 2: in this sense, this section is an exposition on Ivan Karamazov's summary "without immortality, everything is permitted."

* here and throughout I take the convention of referring to qualities (innate, derivative) of the Absolute (i.e. God) as capitalized nouns.

---

section ii will come as soon as possible. possibly monday evening after our hot qcd project is complete. maybe sooner. anything's possible.

ad majorem gloria Dei.