A quick quote -- one that is simple yet at the same time very difficult:
By shame we extinguish shame. That is why the sacrament of confession is so powerful and so regenerating. We bear a little shame on earth for the sake of the Lord, and He gives us such grace, so as to be able to overcome our sins and receive healing for our brokenness. Therefore, becasue He Himself, in His way down, bore the "cross of shame", the more shame we bear the better, the more grace we shall receive for our healing and for a glorious salvation . . . And so it is unavoidable for us, too, to bear a little shame, if we wish to follow Him. He bore shame for our salvation, the cross of shame, and when we share that shame for His sake, according to His commandment, and in order to reconcile ourselves to Him, He considers that a response of gratitude, and He measures out His gifts to us.
-- Archmandrite Zacharias, The Enlargement of the Heart
I am a poor example of bearing shame on a number of levels. I am nonetheless inspired and energized by quotes (and more importantly the lives from which they spring forth) such as these, which call me not to question difficulty in life, but to give thanks for it. Glory to God for all things.
. . . the following quote contains some political "buzz words" (I hear there are some elections coming up soon). Part of my frustration with politics is its inability to deal with the ills of the human condition. Dostoevsky defines this as a great "blasphemy" against God:
"[this blasphemy is] denial not of God, but of the meaning of His creation. The whole of socialism emerged and began with the denial of the meaning of historical reality and went on to a program of destruction and anarchism . . . the scientific and philisophical refutation of the existence of God has already been abandoned, present-day practical socialists are not occupied with it at all, instead they deny with all their might God's creation, God's world, and its meaning. Here in this alone does modern civilization find its nonsense."*
As a Christian, I am forced to deal with the tension of my responsibility as a citizen and the realization that (in my opinion) no matter who I vote for, it involves a compromrise of my faith and casting a vote for, in the words of a friend, "the evils of two lessers" who willingly perpetuate the blasphemy Dostoevsky describes above.
This is not to say that political system is void of any value or that some temporal concerns are frivolous or even purely temporary. Certain moral issues facing this country are black and white. However, deciding which party to vote for, with their secular "answers" for eternal problems, is not.
Not only do I disagree with the means by which our political parties seek to fix societal ills, I am cynical of a political system that is BASED on disagreement with one another. From my viewpoint it is the political system itself, not the polarizing issues or the media (which Donald Miller and others have recently scapegoated as a reason for the current state of polarization in our country) which deserves the primary blame. How are we supposed to be "unified" when a president who wins the election "easily" with 60% of the popular vote still has millions of people who voted for the other candidate and disagree, even strongly with his/her position? I'm no genius but that doesn't sound like a recipe for unity.
*quote taken from the introduction written by Richard Pevear to the novel Demons by Fyodor Dostoevsky, translated by Pevear and Volokhonsky, pg xx.
Ten years ago, when I was still in college along with my good friends Paul and Jake, we decided to drive from Redding, CA to Salem, OR to try to get seats to a sold-out Radiohead show during the tour in support of their album, OK Computer. To try to ensure that we were able to get tickets, we arrived at the Salem Armory quite early in the afternoon, so early that no one else had yet arrived for the evening show. We could hear the band rehearsing inside the venue, and of course we wished that somehow we could be a fly on the wall inside, listening unnoticed to one of the world's biggest bands rehearse. I don't remember how it happened, but one of us must have pulled on the door out of joking desperation, fully expecting it to be locked. We were surprised and shocked to find the door was in fact unlocked. Like giggling school-girls, the three of us immediately walked in without a moment's hesitation.
What we found was Thom Yorke playing a song by himself on acoustic guitar and several roadies playing Frisbee in front of the stage. An odd sight to say the least. An errant toss landed at our feet and a short man with spiky blond hair retrieved the Frisbee from us (it turns out this was not a roadie but the drummer for the opening act, Spiritualized). The expressions on our faces must have made us look obviously out of place, because after a few minutes a woman security guard in her mid-40s promptly ejected us from our pre-concert performance fantasy.
Now, ten years on, I went to see Radiohead again this past week with my wife Olivia (she likes Radiohead quite a bit). I didn't really know what to expect for the show since I really haven't been too big a fan of the band's most recent records, apart from their latest, In Rainbows. The show however, was nothing short of spectacular. The band was locked in and having a good time. Thom Yorke seemed to be comfortable in his skin, which if you are familiar with some of the lyrics he writes, may come as a bit of a surprise (I know it was to me). I felt that the newer, more ambient and electronic songs translated surprisingly well live, with many of the arrangements expanded to include an organic element which I deemed missing from the recorded versions.
Oddly enough, the band screwed up badly enough at both shows that they needed to stop a song and completely start it over; "The Bends" at the show in Salem and "Faust Arp" (they actually had to restart the song twice) in Seattle. The video gives a good feeling of the general mood of the band. In between the screw-ups Johnny Greenwood and Thom Yorke do an impromptu cover of Neil Young's "Tell Me Why" and drummer Phil Selway leaves a tip.
I was greeted by this billboard earlier today after being bused into downtown Seattle from the 'burbs. At the risk of sounding reactionary, I was quite taken aback by the sight. My first thought was that in a country founded in part on the freedom of religion it was ironic that I would see an advertisement for a foundation that proclaims freedom from religion (is it just me or is freedom from religion not an inherent option within freedom of religion?).
The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) website states that their purpose is to act as a "watchdog" for the separation of Church and State. A lifetime member of the FFRF is quoted as saying that the billboards intention is not to question any specific religion or faith but to proclaim that society can only reach its full potential through the scientific method. I would beg to differ. I infer from his words that religion (okay, not a specific religion, but religion in general? All religion?) gets in the way of progress. The FFRF website proclaims that
The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.
Like Hitler and Stalin? Is this statement not an overt claim concerning the negativity of religion, that on a foundational level religion is mutually exclusive with what the FFRF deems as "progress"? Is the implied eradication of religion a means to this end ("progress")? Are the members of FFRF feeling threatened by the free choice of others to practice their respective religion?
I would imagine such a protest against religion is best seen in the context as a reaction against religious fundamentalism. A friend of mine has posted on this topic recently here. I can't help but wonder if the FFRF is unwittingly fostering its own brand of fundamentalism?
Perhaps this posting is an overreaction? Should I view such an organization as lending itself to the promotion of atheism and agnosticism as a viable worldview and nothing more? If the FFRF were simply promoting their worldview as viable, it would in no way threaten my own personal beliefs or even my choice to have a belief. What bothers me is not the overt language of promotion but the overt and implied disparagement of religious belief. Does this message not run counter to the "freethought" claim of the FFRF?
If the past 100 years of human history has taught us anything, it is that fascism can have an ugly, dangerous and conservative face bent toward evil masquerading in the name of "progress." I fear the direction in which our society is currently headed, our evil clown bent on progress at all costs has changed masks and tactics; he has traded in his conservative mask for a liberal one. The end result of "progress" remains but the means by which to achieve that end has changed.
A quick quote -- one that is simple yet at the same time very difficult:
