Category Archives: Uncategorized

Lifeline to the Faithful

Lifeline to the Faithful


The faith is a demanding thing, and the way may well be impossible.

You are a creature, in the flesh, and subject to the stresses and demands of physical survival.  You can no more extract yourself from the natural world than you can leap off the Earth and land on the Moon.

We will ever be at odds with the world, and if we are not, that shall be a warning to us.  As it is, the more one is faithful, the more he will be hated.

The darkness is always closing in.

 

The world then, with its powerful and mighty, its famed and fortunate, has an appeal the faithful can never capture.  There is enmity and it cannot be bridged.  The advantage, so long as we are in the world, belongs to the worldly.

So you may find yourself beaten down.  In a world upside-down – as it will ever be – your virtue is a drag on your success, your kindness is weakness, your modesty is a limit beyond which your competitors race to defeat you.

You may come to think that, despite the echoes of your dreams, dreams from a far-off place, you are destined to a middling life.  Gray and sluggish, commoditized, leaving no impression by which you will ever be remembered.

But you’ve got it all wrong;  You have swallowed the lie.

 

I am your brother, listen to me:  You have closed yourself off from God.

God – does not – permit mediocrity.  He will spit you out, and perhaps He has.

 

Here is how you will find the moment of expectoration:  When did you last avoid a good action because of fear?   It is that simple – in your family, in your business, in your spiritual life, when you have found something good to be too much, or too dreadful, you assumed the temperature of the room.  You were no longer pleasing to the taste, giving satisfaction to the thirst.

 

The lie is that, as a child of God, you are bound to defeat.  No need to begin fighting, it will all end in flames and ashes.

The enemy is no fool.  He knows that if he can demoralize you before you’ve begun to fight back, he’s already won.

The game is rigged against you, he says.  He holds all the cards.  Go ahead, make a run at it – see how easily you are slapped down?  And what are you resisting sin for, after all?  If it is all for God and the ultimate victory, why does God not win right now?  Why does He make it all but impossible for you to succeed?

 

Now, do you see how you have been poisoned and duped?  Do you see how the world has trampled upon your God-given dignity, and has stifled the mighty works God meant to work through you?  It is time to go in, whips in hand, and throw the tables over.

The truth is, you have not trusted God enough.  You have accepted, from fear or disappointment, that He will not come through for you.

Perhaps you are inadequate (you are).  Perhaps you are imperfect (doubtless).  Yes, you have failed, and you have shamed yourself, and you have given every earthly reason to any worldly power that you are not up to the task.

Do you see the lie?  You will see it when you hear the truth:  You do not answer to a worldly power.  You answer to the Almighty.

Therefore!  It does not matter if you have failed by worldly measures, over and over again.  It does not matter if you have showed yourself inadequate for the task, lacking in perseverance, intelligence, skill.

Fool!  IT. IS. NOT. ABOUT. YOU.

Do you wonder why Adam and Eve ate of the apple?  First, clean your lips of that bitter sweetness… you have sunk your teeth into the lie and devoured it whole.

 

Let’s put it starkly, written in a flame against the blackness of night:  The Devil has isolated you from God, and proceeded to devour you.  This is why you are demoralized, beaten down, perpetually inadequate, in motion and going nowhere.

The Devil is virtually a god and has convinced you that you must face him under your own power.  Every failure, every weak moment, every grasp at evil is one more victory for him, and one more defeat for you.  And you have no hope of overcoming him…

 

…alone.

But of course he has lied to you.  He rigged the game, he set you up for destruction.  Now, you know better.

You, as always, must call on the Almighty.  You must call on Him with all of the desperation of a drowning man, because truly you cannot defeat the waves.  You must call on him as though the enemy came fully armed, has you surrounded, and is counting down to your annihilation.  Because you cannot defeat death.

 

But He can.

And there it is, my brother, my sister.  Look to Him, always.  Pray to Him, at every moment, for every good thing – especially in your need.

Then, simply hold on.  Work and strive and fight with everything you have, reinforced by the power of God.  One day you will barely be able to stand, and the next you will be lifting mountains.  First, you will strain to walk, then you will race with all speed to the ends of the earth.

Many will doubt, and then you will succeed beyond all of their expectations.

Many will forecast doom, and you will deliver victory.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Litany of Humility

Litany of Humility


Maybe you’ve seen this.  Every once in a while I come across something which is, in an accurate way, devastating to my ego.  More on the ego another time…

I’m tempted to say that most people should experience a similar response, though that’s probably an egotistical thing to say.  Therefore, I will say that every line advances the line before it, the total effect I might liken to an imagined world where I own a profitable casino.  One day the casino is struck by lightning, and the fire steadily grabs hold of the entire building and burns it down.  The conclusion of the prayer is like staring at the smoldering ruins, and all that mix of emotions before such (perhaps holy) devastation. The prayer can be found at http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/humility.htm, among other sites.

O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.

From  the desire of being esteemed,


Deliver me, Jesus.

From the desire of being loved…

From the desire of being extolled …

From the desire of being honored …

From the desire of being praised …

From the desire of being preferred to others…

From the desire of being consulted …

From the desire of being approved …

From the fear of being humiliated …

From  the fear of being despised…

From the fear of suffering rebukes …

From the fear of being calumniated …

From the fear of being forgotten …

From the fear of being ridiculed …

From the fear of being wronged …

From the fear of being suspected …

That others may be loved more than I,

Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.

  That others may be esteemed more than I …

That, in the opinion of the world,

others may increase and I may decrease …

That others may be chosen and I set aside …

That others may be praised and I unnoticed …

That others may be preferred to me in everything…

That others may become holier than I,
provided that I may become as holy as I should…







Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



 

Love Letter to a Skeptic

Love Letter to a Skeptic

You know who you are.  Just be yourself now, be comfortable.  I only want to talk to you.

Forgive me, I don’t often make gestures like this.  My love letters have been narrowly circulated.  Still, I am compelled, and it is by love.

Our relationship to God points to an immense asymmetry; as though that were not obvious.  But it is not always so obvious, and so we have the idea that attempts to define God are restricted to analogy; attempts to understand God are folly; we try to pull God down and fit him into our minds, when we ought to lift our minds and fit them within the reality of God.

There is another asymmetry worth mentioning:  Between you, dear skeptic, and atheism.  That is, you cannot fit into atheism.  It is smaller than you, too small for you.  You are a human being – atheism fits you like the wings of a butterfly.  It appears as liberty, but it is only over-indulgance.  It appears as freedom, but it is only a free fall.

No – real liberty, real freedom, have a referent.  They must refer to something, or else they mean nothing.

And atheism, being nothing at all, does not properly fit into you, either.  It is like an empty stomach, a hole in the heart.  It doesn’t fit into anything – it only leaves a gnawing ache.  It is a sign of something missing.

What of love, then?

You are more than a void, you are more than a pre-determined and meaningless accident.  These are the unicorns, these fabricated entities – nothing like them exists.  There is no meaningless accident.  (Cynic, hold back your protest).

No – when you love, you rise above any conceivable reality composed only of matter.  Quantum vacuums cannot love; a supernova cannot love; a flower cannot love; though we may be tempted to believe so because of their beauty.

Now, naturally, naturalism might come roaring in.  Perhaps love will one day be reduced to an algorithm.  Maybe two, since it has a peculiar out-going and in-flowing quality about it, requiring two sequences of operation.  Maybe it will be explained by the likes of evolutionary psychologists, whose playful efforts have made for interesting bathroom reading, but could not be relied upon by a policeman or a poet.

Just for a moment, be still.  Hear the feeble voice of someone trying to love you.  Hear, not the tune, but the soul of every love song.  Pull together the discordant thoughts; yes, seek the pattern.  If atheism is true – whence comes the pattern?  From nothing?

What faith!

But there is nothing in that faith except impossible things.  There is no love – not love which is also the heartbeat of creation, which is also color against the gray of suffering and dull reliance on only those things immediately in front of us.  Those things even more transient than our short lives, those things you burden with the weight of all possible meaning.

Love is electricity, love is the Big Bang.  Love is money in your pocket, when you come to realize someone else put it there.

Love is a steady but not static Universe, with laws that are firm, with hidden patterns and minds prepared to discern those patterns.

Love is childbirth, a warm hug in a cold world, the steady tick of a clock which reminds you, all suffering will pass.

Love is the second cheek, patient forbearance, the extra mile, the happy martyr.  These things do not matter in an atheistic Universe, no more than a stiff neck; with God, they are tokens of eternity.

Transcendence, then?  Dear skeptic, have you sought transcendence by denying God, as though you could get over, through, under, or around Him?  As though, with the Author out of the way, you could tell the story your own way?

Put aside childish things.  Bring your fingers to the ground – you did not make the least grain of sand, not even the dirt that crunches beneath your feet.  Breathe in the air – that was not of your making, neither the oxygen nor the lungs.  Give a shout – not a thing will move or even hear you, unless the Author permits it to be so.

No – what is better than atheism (which only declares the absence of a promise, and boasts the absence of meaning)?  Anything, of course – but the Truth, above all.

You could not write the whole story – but you are like the Author, and so you have stories to tell.  You could not create out of nothing – but you are like the Designer, and so you can invent.  You could not produce even the dazzling elegance of a cell, certainly not from as-yet unknown particles obeying as-yet unknown laws – but you are a child of God, and you can have children of your own.

If you will take just one step down, dear skeptic, off of that piddling, petty pedestal you’ve made, you might have a ladder, with angels ascending and descending from Heaven.  If you will not shirk the weight of faith, you might bear the weight of your full dignity, take up a throne of glory.

You have no reason, I know, to change your mind.  Love seldom converts a cynic.

But still it moves.





Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



 

Mystics

Mystics


This is a cheap trick of the charlatan, but it is used because it works:  Forget everything you think you know about “mysticism.”  Let’s refresh our understanding.

A mystic is a person – you or I could be a mystic.  You might also call someone a winner, or a loser.  You might call them blessed or cursed.  You might call them a mystic, or a muggle.

Now, these pairs have been chosen because they relate to experiences a person has had.  No one is a “winner” until he wins; no one is a “loser” until he fails.  A person must experience blessings before we call her blessed, and must endure afflictions before we call her cursed.

One might now object:  “Muggle” sounds more like an innate property of a person, rather than an experience that person has had.  This would miss the point!

Alas, one may not speak anymore without a preponderance of intellectual speed bumps and stumbling blocks!  Say this about modernity – it is awfully tedious.

No, muggle, I was only being colorful.  I will now be technical:  You have your mystic, and you have your naturalist.

What, then, is the experience which the mystic has had, which the naturalist (at least according to his philosophy) has not?

For the Christian, it is really quite simple:  It is an encounter with the living God, directly or indirectly.

In the details, the curious naturalist can get confused, skeptical, even dismissive.  Rightly so, given his intellectual commitments.  But it really isn’t so confusing, and while skepticism is often a virtue, it is careless to be completely dismissive of mystical experiences.

On at least one front, I tend to line up with the naturalist.  I do not buy as mystical any kind of experience which is reliably induced, which fits neatly into a preconceived system of belief, or else which is described by terms meant to be profound, which have no clear meaning (e.g. “thoughts of light”).

Behold – my earlier complete dismissal of contemporary Christian music!

Now let the speed bump appear:  Ah, but it was not good to be completely dismissive.  Very well – I have learned.

While I do not necessarily endorse every song or effort from such bands, I have come to appreciate Jars of Clay.  I would commend to you certain songs from Third Day and Hillsong United.  And I would commend David Crowder Band.

Please note, I do not hereby commend the videos or comments to you.  Probably best just to listen.  Nor do I commend them as musically exceptional.  They are not, as far as I can tell, especially innovative or challenging.

What I see in them I recently noticed while listening to “How He Loves” from David Crowder Band (linked above).  I said to myself, “He’s had a mystical experience.”

What one notices in “How He Loves” is a concerted, desperate effort – like a man trying to paint a picture of his deceased wife – to express and thus, to share, his encounter with God.

The true naturalist can hardly guess at this.  It may seem to him that, because the mystic uses words which are intelligible to him, such an experience must not be so extraordinary.  Indeed, consider:

He is jealous for me

Loves like a hurricaneI am a tree

Bending beneath the weight of His wind and mercy

When all of the sudden

I am unaware of these afflictions eclipsed by glory

And I see just how beautiful You are

And how great Your affections are for me

To the naturalist – let us presume a humble naturalist – this is perhaps a little strange, as it suggests a powerful encounter with a non-existent entity.  The lyrics themselves, from the mouth of David Crowder, seem to be authentic and are perhaps charming in their style, though not what we might expect from a master of the English language.  The humble naturalist might back up my claim – contemporary Christian music is not all terrible.

Such a review is (quite precisely) condescending, but who can fault the reviewer?  Such a person imagines himself above the song because he can’t imagine himself in it.  After all, he has not had a mystical experience.

A fellow mystic, however, might find herself weeping at these humble lyrics.  For her, they are not merely charming, but evocative.  They call out, from the fogginess of memory and doubt, her own encounter with the Everlasting, with Love Himself.

She is not especially caught up in the literary value of the words.  She knows their authenticity is better gauged by their insufficiency, though they strive for all of the beauty and grandeur they can convey.  She knows that words will never be enough; one evokes the oceans because there is nothing else which is so vast and yet so immanent.  The sky is likewise vast, but out of reach; the ocean can touch every inch of her body, and swallow her whole.  (Says David Crowder:  “If His grace is an ocean, we’re all sinking“).

The mystic understands how God is like an ocean.  More importantly, she understands how God surpasses the ocean, and this is why she weeps.

 

Allow me one more note:  What about the one who is not a naturalist, nor a mystic?  Let’s take an “ordinary” believer, who simply thinks Christianity is true, but has not experienced the presence of God in any direct or astonishing way.  (This could be extended, in a way, to people of other faiths, but there is not space for that here).

Though I have asked the question, I reject the premise – there are only mystics.  It is the true naturalist who is illusory, established on a false view of reality.  No one is really a pure naturalist.

Perhaps not, you might say, but they would deny any encounter with God.

True enough, and now we venture close to that deeply troubled position of reading others’ minds.  I have no interest in that.

Rather, with respect to their minds, I invite them to consider these things.  Only consider the parts of your experience which defy physical explanation:  Why do you think anything is good?  (Is love good?)  Why is truth so valuable that you respect people who will sacrifice for it?  Why do you trust logic to sort out truth from falsehood?  (Does it matter whether a thing is true or not?)

Why do you wish to pour yourself out into the water when you gaze out over the ocean at night?  Why do you wish you could walk on water, or run without growing tired, or live forever?  Why is it that you can imagine sharing something better than sex with a person, but you can’t say what it is?

Loosen your restraint – follow for a moment, and see where the questions lead.

The longing is sincere, and ubiquitous.  A direct encounter with God is not required, only an answer:  Is there anything which satisfies these longings, or not?

The mystics answer in the affirmative; some have even tasted and seen.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Napoleon

Napoleon

I’ve seen the first sentence of this quote, but not the rest.  Very interesting, especially the last line.  What a stark thing for such a man to say.

“I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him.”






Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 




Objective Morality – 1

Objective Morality – 1


The subject of objective morality is a troubled one.  Bring it up, even clearly and with care, and one is nevertheless met with some flavor of righteous indignation or a general misanthropy leaving us morally inferior to the apes.

For my part, I am as earnest as I am ambitious, and even troubled waters will not keep me from putting out to sea once more.*

First, what do we mean by objective morality?

Webster works well enough, and I paraphrase thus:  Morality is a doctrine or system of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong.

There is nothing foreign about this.  We pass moral judgments all the time, even without realizing it.  When someone speeds recklessly down the highway, flying past your own vehicle, you judge that this person is going much faster than is safe.  You further judge that they are deficient in their duties to the other drivers on the road, lacking in a value which can only be defined in terms of right and wrong.

Now, objective morality connotes a system of beliefs which is true independent of what anyone may think about it.

An example of an objective truth (which is not a moral truth) is that 9 x 9 = 81.  Even if the United Nations decided tomorrow that all of the world should answer that 9 x 9 = Porridge, it would remain true that 9 x 9 = 81, no matter what we say about it.

An example of an objective moral truth is that “Rape is wrong.”  If all the world should decide tomorrow that rape is morally neutral, or even morally praiseworthy, it would nevertheless remain true (according to the concept of objective morality) that rape is actually still wrong, no matter what we think about it.

Now – if you ask me, the first question we should ask in any discussion of right and wrong is whether there is an objective morality.

If there is not, then the discussion is drained of meaning.  We are now talking about personal preferences; even baser – we are talking about mere appetites.  There can be no moral objections, because there is no real meaning behind morality.  (More soon)

If there is, then we have some discerning to do.  How is it that we discover what is morally right and morally wrong?  According to what standard are these things judged?  This distinction is between moral epistemology and moral ontology, and we’ll discuss that next time.

 

*As before, in this space.


2 thoughts on “Objective Morality – 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Objective Morality – 2

Objective Morality – 2


We kicked off the morality parade in the last post, promising to deal with ontology and epistemology in this one.  Let it be so.

Morality, we said, is a system of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong.  Elementary, no?  Yet, for our purposes, we must make some hay out of this simple assertion.

What, after all, does it mean for an action to be “right”?  And “wrong”?  Right or wrong with respect to what?

A few examples will make the point:

I walk down the street at 4.5 miles per hour.  Is this right or wrong, morally?

My child had her lunch money stolen.  I give her money for lunch, but no consolation.  Is this right or wrong, morally?  Relative to what standard?

I declare that cold-blooded murder is morally good.  Am I correct, or incorrect?

On the one hand, these are not challenging questions.  I suppose very few people would have any difficulty answering them, and that there would be a wide consensus on those answers.  More on this next time.

On the other hand, as any sophomore philosophy student will tell you, they are not as straight-forward as they seem.  The second question in the second example (Relative to what standard?) points to this, and the fact that I’ve asked questions about seemingly obvious situations is also suggestive.

The sophomore will want to contextualize the first example: Are you walking toward something?  Away from something?  Are you shirking your duties, or avoiding a conflict?  (Note that I meant merely the act of walking, apart from any context).

The example about praising cold-blooded murder as morally good is probably easiest to answer – but why?  How do we know that cold-blooded murder is wrong?  Are you sure?  (Freshman ethics courses are fraught with such questions).

To some extent, all we have done here is obfuscate the issues with hypothetical information.  The sophomore is just being difficult.

Yet, not merely difficult.  After all, it’s exactly when the context changes that our moral judgments are challenged.  But if the choice is easy in the first case, and difficult when the context changes, how are we to resolve this difficulty?

We require the moral standard itself.  What is “the good” against which we compare all moral actions?  When we have two choices, against what are they weighed in order to decide which is a morally better decision?

This is moral ontology, to investigate the nature of the good.

And how is it that we come to know the good?  When we are caught in a moral dilemma, how is it that we decide which action to take?  How can we be confident we know the good?

This is moral epistemology, the study of our knowledge of the good.

Many discussions of morality seem to bounce back and forth between moral epistemology and ontology, often without the speaker seeming to realize it.  I dare to say it’s a more subtle distinction that we’re used to.  We’ll get into this more in the next post.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Fire-Breathing Catholics

Fire-Breathing Catholics

“If they should come for the innocent without stepping over your body, then cursed be your religion and your life!”  – Dorothy Day

Yes, how is that for a litmus test?  I can’t read or even think of this line without shivering.  I think I would have the same reaction if I had ever had the opportunity to meet Dorothy Day.

This may or may not become a series, but I’m confident there is enough material.






Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 




Existence of God – 9

Existence of God – 9


And now, after nine posts, the thesis:  If we are careful, there is much to be gained from the analogy of God as the author of creation.

I have drawn out this one attribute (omnipotence) via this one argument (the KCA) so that I would not have to draw out the introduction of the analogy.  Let’s see how that plays…

Let us consider an author, one just starting to write a book.  Let’s say you are the author, for the time being.

You are writing a love story, set in pre-Industrial America.  An upper class woman and a working class inventor, he working on a prototype for a steam engine.  They have a rendezvous in his shop, a secret appointment, and things start to get, um, steamy…

(Nice pun at the end there, you).

All of the evocative details aside, do you not have power, say, to have a giraffe walk through the shop during the middle of a long kiss?  Can’t you send stars crashing into each other in the rhythm of their heavy breathing?  Can’t you cut away the rest of the planet, so that they exist, in this shop on a small island of earth, with a 360 degree backdrop of the Universe?

We’re not talking about believability here (though we will eventually).  All I’m asking you is, what can’t you do?

Let’s ask one of the traditional riddles about God and omnipotence.  Can God make a stone so large that He can’t lift it?

Now, briefly, the implication is that if He CAN’T make that stone, then there’s something He can’t do; and if He can make it, but CAN’T lift it, there again is something He can’t do.  Thus, the dilemma is supposed to make absurd (and incoherent) the idea of omnipotence.  Therefore, there is no God, or else He is not omnipotent.

But what do we mean by “omnipotent”?  And how to answer this riddle in light of the present analogy?

 







Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



 

Expecting Twins, Disaster

Expecting Twins, Disaster


Thanks for the tip from Chris Fox, who is more newsy than I am.

A father expecting twins blogged about his feelings and experience, and there was some kind of backlash; the mother (his pregnant wife) then did a write up to offer her version of the story.

There is much criticism that can be heaped on these two.  Aside from the easy and obvious – “So I made the final call: we transferred both embryos.” …and… “Why would the universe, God, karma, whatever, whomever think it was a good idea to bring forth twins in our lives?” – in the same write-up*, presumably written by the same person with at least a passing understanding of cause and effect…

Well, just sit with that.

Many of the commenters noticed this, of course, but I want to ask another question:  Why would it occur to her at all that anyone had done this to her, as though she was an innocent bystander and was suddenly pregnant with twins?  What’s more, I don’t think she’s the one and only person in the world who would have thought that …even if you leave off her husband.

Seeing as how the divine and/or or transcendent entities she refers to are interchangeable, I assume she does not hold a serious faith in any of them.  In fact, she speaks of a general sense of disillusionment – she went from being an optimistic person to damn-well near a fatalistic one.  She rejects the straightforward acknowledgement of reality from her doctors (“This was always a possibility.”), and rejects the sentiments of others – some presumably having experience as parents – who say, “Things will get better.”  The former she rejects as lacking compassion; the latter as lacking understanding.

I have seen this before – in children, and in adults acting like children, including myself.  It is the position of someone who has not gotten her way, and the only solution she would smile on is that which sets everything right.  Exactly right, the way she would have it.

And other commenters have asked, “So things didn’t work out according to your plan?  You’ll have no pity from me.”  But I want to ask, “Why would you expect that things should go your way?”

I do hold a serious faith, and I do not expect everything to go as I would like.  It is difficult for me to understand why this is a serious objection to faith.  For if you abandon your faith, things still will not go your way all of the time – does that somehow bring comfort, like one who has sufficiently low expectations for life, thereby reducing his hurdles to a height of a few inches, so that he feels accomplished when he clears them?

There are other serious objections to faith – let’s not let disillusionment be one.  After all, doesn’t this only prove the point that, if there is a Creator, ye are not He?

But my good friend has, in part, sent this along to me because I am also a parent of twins.  And I say that these parents already are, too, though they have begun with a false start.

Still – and if I could speak to them directly, this is what I would say – take heart.  It is not necessarily a crime nor a sin to speak your feelings out loud.  But you must recognize that your feelings, in this case, are unworthy of you, and they are unworthy of your unborn children (and your born child, for that matter).  You are a human being, and not a computer program – you may change your mind, and even your heart.  You have freedom of the will.

You are not a slave to the feeling that you have “ruined your family.”  You are not a slave to the feeling of being “not happy.”

And if it was me, speaking to my child, or myself – Rise up, child of God.  Be bigger than you are.  We are all falling, all the time – get up.  Ask for God’s grace, and go on as though you are sure it will come.

Because, y’all, twins are tough.  You find yourself in the situation, sometimes, where you hold one and the other cries.  So you set the first one down and pick up the second…and the first one cries.

And they don’t just cry.  They wail, they beg through big, wet tears for the suffering to stop, they scream as though they are being carried away by lions.  You don’t just attend to their needs – you attend to your own, knowing that this wailing and gnashing of gums is wholly unjustified, and yet you must comfort these children.

And maybe you’re already tired, because you’ve worked all day after losing sleep all night, and the older children are now clamoring, and whining, and relishing even negative attention.  You are probably hungry, having foregone food for the sake of making sure the children are fed, and you really are – a psychologist would readily bear this out – strung out on adrenaline, straining to preserve a semblance of order, of anything looking like control.

You know, with terrible certainty, why some parents beat their children.

Nevermind that you’re feeling vulnerable, financially.  Nevermind that your spouse seems not to understand your plea for help (or simply is unable to do anything about it), or that you felt disrespected at work today, or that your friends are falling away because they don’t have the same obligations you do.  Or worse, your dreams are falling away.  Nevermind the other, even more serious, troubles that life brings.

My dear friends, mother and father – is that all?  You have two real, live people with you.  It is an amazing, solemn obligation even for the naturalist – for the supernaturalist, you are looking at the image of God.  Prefer that you should die rather than fail in your duties.

I beg – I hope and sincerely pray – that you know, you were made for this.  When you see that, and you let the obstacles to it fall away, you will be good parents.  Maybe great.  Maybe holy.  That potential really is there.

Gird your loins.  Change your mind.

It does get better.

 

*Resisting the inclination to call it an “essay.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *