Onward Christian Soldiers

Christ speaks, once or twice, of a delusion that is going to come over us... (err, that is, you, me & everyone else) in the last days [and for those of you who are not students of last day theologies, please note that that portion of the calendar of time was implicitly recognized in (at least) the writings of St. Paul as already having begun: they were in the last days, even as we are. I am thinking in particular of the list which includes 'disobedient to parents.'

Yet the culmination of those days did (& does) indeed refer to a time far off & not yet tallied.]

The delusion will be so severe that it will even affect the elect, 'if such a thing be possible.' [Yes, even amongst the orthodox, last days theology is considered, I fear, a bit 'out there.' So we may or may not return to the topic. It's not really what this post is about now, is it.]

I almost titled this post, "The New Mean."

And perhaps I should - it is a given that the existing title is ironic...I don't know yet whether this post will be about mean-ness, tone in writing, last days, delusion(s), Christian responsibility, Christian necessity, the difference between men & women (yes, I did throw that one in, too), American reputation (here & abroad), civil vs. faithful Church(es), the lack of courtesy in the workforce, issues that distract from Matters at Hand, Christian soldiers, that infamous site I have blogged about now several times, people who think they are more important than they are - or all of the above.

Or none of the above. Who knows, I may just decide to write about English gardens, those neat little corners with prim pathways made of dirt or stone, too tiny for two to slip past without one standing to the side, inhaling politely - early morning, when joy is still possibility, and the gentle scent of rosemary, thyme, and other sweetnesses that hurt the very soul with their loveliness aboundeth - yes, I could post about such tranquilities.

And yes, my posts do tend to be all of the above, more than anything. That 'wander at will' so cherished by Resident Blogger.

Don't suspect I'll get to blog about gardens, English, ordered, tiny havens, tranquil or otherwise. The topic today, she said, rustling those papers again...hmm. I am minded of my grandmother [the one who was a Sunday School teacher from her very, very young years (most of you just beginning to eye boys shyly at that age) & eventually ended up married to a preacher, in spite of making it Abundantly Clear to the universe & Whoever Else was listening that that was not going to be her fate] - I can see her, standing at the podium, preparing to start a lesson, and just that way, rustling papers & looking off into space as she collected her thoughts.

But I am not collecting my thoughts. They are not possible to be collected, or prepared. I am avoiding my topic(s), to be sure, and very sure.

It seems delusion is the rule of it, however, these days. Which is why it were perhaps better to start this as that New Mean. Because, as those of you who are faithful readers will recollect from an earlier post (err, see below, rest of you), a Very Orthodox friend happened to mention to me that a Particular Anglican Site is 'mean.'

Having been so foolish [when will I get that people don't really want to know the truth about anything (again, see below; seems I did a blog on chiding)] as to assume Something Could - Gently, to be sure - Be Said About It [moi & Said Partner (err, truth) go back a long way, if it must be said. Me chasing Truth, Truth always just ahead, looking back & beckoning, to be sure, but staying just ahead.

Or, if I might borrow from Isobel, Because the pursuit of truth is what life is. And it’s as much a lie to think you’ve found it as to not recognize it when you do.]...

Well. Onward Christian Soldiers, and if you're thinking mean is the new nice, go for it.

One almost wants to stop there. Because, yes, the reality remains that I did go back in to the site itself and post comment-ary on the matter there...but it is that global reality of mean being the new nice, even in Christian circles, that must be addressed.

Because that is what bloggers do...address the global. I mean. Social commentary & all...

As has likewise been addressed before...in another post. As has likewise been addressed here before - that circling little reality that the same thing is said & resaid & said again. Conversation, perhaps, is not so bad...if you are still young enough to remember who you told what, conversation does not quite devolve to saying it over & over & over...

But back to the matter at hand. I've noted much of the same in business circles. Somehow we have the notion now that if we put people off, don't answer the phone when they call, don't return their call, leave them sitting in the waiting room thirty minutes without bothering to say we are too busy to see them, disregard the basic courtesies of recognizing/following up on the constraints our - err, importance - costs those who have the misfortune to deal with us...we have shown who is the superior.

We have shown who is important! I am important because I don't have time for you!

Or, as it may, I am important because I have this nice title that says I am the boss & I have underlings & as long as I can - err, boss them around - I am important; they are impressed; who cares if the work gets done...

Sorry, but all we have shown is how unmitigatingly rude we can be, and where I derive from, rudeness & boorishness go hand in hand. Which is to say, a boor is a boor is a boor...and a wee bit lower on the totem pole of that 'society' they covet...

Boorishness does not show superiority. Who in the common culture we have to thank for that - or what – might get examined on another post; one could follow that thread to good purpose (or not) - but in spite of my great love for aforesaid 'wander at will,' upon occasion, I must rein my topic in.

Because when boorishness invades the Christian realm, we are in a different matter entirely. And quoting Scripture at those who should Certainly Know Better solves little. Which is why, again, it devolves to Mean is the New Nice...

Except those of us who are a little older (is it age, or something more lovely?) do know that it is not, and never will be.

You see, the history of the Church is not a good one. So when this new batch comes in professing they know Christ more - and misbehaving in quite the fashion they do - I remember things like the Inquisition and really, don't know anymore what to say.

(Err. You should be so lucky.) (Nonetheless, has something been said if no one hears: is a writer a writer if no one reads?)

Yes, the heat of battle (or, if I may, leadership) has its own twisting - that is why, perhaps, we have good leaders & we have - umm, less than good. Easy to criticize from the sidelines and if you are like moi (either returning from snoozing on the sidelines or a dark night of the soul: take your pick), just getting your feet wet in the whole thing...

I guess it is that each situation is different, and when one gently chides, it should be about a global trend, rather than weighing in on a particular person.

These days, to be sure, people can't tell the difference.

Oh for the days when people had the good sense to argue well!

But on to the divided Church - and, to be sure, I do not speak of the global divisions (Eastern, Western; Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox; Protestant, Protestant, Protestant; etc.) but merely of the smaller division - Anglican vs. Anglican. Because the orthodox believers (with whom Resident Editor & Resident Blogger keep company) have cast the - err, more modern believers into this camp (whether they are aware of it or no) of a Church that confuses civil responsibilities with those of the faith.

I am saying the same thing all over again, as my faithful readers will know, but (as they likewise will know) saying it a different way, in some small hope of finally getting it said.

N'est ce pas? A church concerned with social justice is a civil Church. It is the same thing as 'marketplace' or 'city gates' or 'public sphere' - and as I have said elsewhere, what Christ-in-us begins will indeed go out into that marketplace: all that we live, breathe & have our being in will grow from that new life in us. (Or not. But we will examine the 'not' later.)

And as I have likewise noted elsewhere, some dividing occurs: as Daniel in the Babylonian courts shows, we will ofttimes have obligations in the public sphere that are not what our private necessities find palatable. Balancing the two in a pluralistic, multi-cultural, post-Christian mentality is not going to be easy.

Or, as Christ said, we cannot throw what is holy to the dogs - or was it pigs - because they will turn on us and trample us. Something must be held back – kept private – kept holy. The early Church interpreted that in the manner of [what we in the Anglican communion regard as] sacraments; (yes, many will tell you that the early Church kept things secret to preserve their lives, but with martyrdom as highly regarded as it was, I suspect that may be a modern lens to it) – some possibility of other interpretations, but we will not examine them at present.

The problem I am seeing, however, is a militant Church (and not necessarily the Church Militant) on the orthodox side that is allowing a civil church in the same manner as the liberal side...each side 'preaching' its views but neither side very good at living Christ in us.

I of all people know well what it is to falter. Sometimes, I think, it is the best thing to learn, and learn well. But my point is that if it is the views of one civil body arguing against the views of another - and each saying his view has the approval of God - has the true word of God - we don't have much.

Because if each side is berating the other...if each side is hating the other...if each side fights using the same weaponry as the other...why should either side be taken seriously?

For those of you who are Biblically literate, St. Paul's ringing challenges to the Christians of his day could easily be thundered at the present moment. Even his most famous passage - used by Christian & non-Christian alike - speaks to the battle at hand: faith, hope & love...but the greatest of these is love.

A word we must use carefully, perhaps, these days. But I think an examination of the other two words might as well be in order...faith? Hope? And why is it that - wasn't it James - proclaimed that mercy was superior to the point of covering over a multitude of sins?

Why are we exhorted not to judge - not only by those whose words frame now what we hold as canon (or 'rule') - but by our Lord Himself?

Why is the division of the sheep from the goats to take place at the Judgment - by Christ Himself - not, as so many of us (innocently, I am sure, in our zeal) take it upon ourselves to pronounce now...

Why are we given a lifetime to get it right - or (as I posted in a comment at said site) wrong, as the case might be.

What, indeed, does that little caveat mean, "He who perseveres to the end will be saved..."

Love is, unfortunately, the first weapon gripped, at this point in the battle between the two churches who each are fighting civil battles, with civil swords. What did Christ's love look like?

And why is it the imperative now, as then.

Why is it the starting - and ending - place.

What does love look like.

What did it look like when Christ called the Pharisees 'whitewashed tombs.' When He did not stone the woman caught in adultery.

When He told her to go, and sin no more...

Why is it that Christ's fiercest judgments were for the rule-givers...and His gentlest mercies were for those who sin...

Because the answer is not, because sin is okay.

But nor is the answer, because rules must constrict us. You see, I don't think it is that the 'Law which revives the soul' is a matter of rules laid out to burden us. The early Church examined this when the Gentiles were brought into the faith. Christ Himself examined this, again & again. But rules remain the first weapon grabbed to defend against love.

As another post notates (Random Points Revisited), the love of Christ is watchful, mindful & active.

It will never take us anywhere that is not consonant with the call to be holy, as God is holy. Nor will it redefine what it is to be holy. And it is not because we can become God. But because we who are created in the image of God must be like our Father; we are the reflected image - we are called to live lives which are holy, because He is holy. He whom we reflect.

Having been in this dark night these last years - we will call it that & leave it there - I examined a great many times what it is to be holy: what are the things which pull us from holiness, and why must they be in opposition to it.

But (as other posts have examined) - the things of the Divine in this linear universe devolve to rules; we do not know how to live the life of the Spirit apart from it. And God knows what we are made of.

God knows the struggle(s) we face, and how poorly – even with the gift of His Spirit – we can get from Point A to Point B on the test here. But you see, the answers to the test questions listed above are answers we all should know.

And do not.

Or perhaps better, live like we do not.

That is all I have ever said. So I say it again, hoping this time to get it right. It is, I think, a dangerous battle for any of us to be fighting, without two tools an older faith (for ours is very young) would not have fought without: (1) Biblical authority (how can you know the authority of a Book you have not read; a Book you do not know intimately - not just to piously quote and/or use to point fingers - but correctly interpret; correctly apply to a situation) - and - (2) prayer.

St. Paul gives a host of others. But they are for soldiers.

And most of us are still those children playing in the marketplace....

[Editor's note(s). Quote borrowed from Isobel Freer at 'we must live as though the city had eyes' Copyright 2008 Isobel Freer - and taken from an earlier, unpublished manuscript; copyright undetermined. Used by permission.]