Colin Anderson is Fighting for You this Memorial Day

The yester-media is starting their predictable pattern of painting the troops in Iraq as a group of burned out killers. Whatever their age, films - - combined with illiberal education in our secularized colleges- - have painted a picture in the minds of most people of troops at war as burned out, drug using, half-wits: the lying stereotype of the Vietnam warrior.

War is a kind of hell and there is no doubt that in the days to come the media will find some troops who fit their stereotype. Anybody can find a person to fit their prejudice if they try.

To counteract this, let me tell you about Colin Anderson. He is a classically educated graduate of Torrey Honors at Biola University. He volunteered to serve out of a deep sense of duty and a love of country. He serves as a medic; he reads, reflects, and tries to image his Christian values.

Earlier this year, he faced the ultimate test of his courage when his unit drove over an IED. Colin was badly burned, but returned to save the lives of his men. He has mercy for the people of Iraq he is liberating from decades of slavery and a justice for the evil men who would keep them in bondage.

Colin has been awarded the Purple Heart and several other service awards for his work for freedom. When asked about it he shrugs and comments that he is doing his duty. He is a gentleman who reflects deeply on the value of liberty and the good his unit is doing for the nation of Iraq, our own country, and the world.

Remember Colin the next time the media begins to celebrate the token losers amongst our brave troops. He is the real face of our fighting men and women.

Yesterday at Torrey graduation, the entire audience rose to their feet to cheer the service of man who is fighting for us. Of course, we know there are bad American fighting men and they should be punished. We can be confident that such men will be punished, which is a first for the nation of Iraq: rogue soldiers cannot get away with misdeeds.

When some in the old media focus obsessively on the few bad souls in our armed forces and their misdeeds, they do not reflect reality, but, one sometimes fears, only an image of their own twisted view of reality. I hope you join me on this weekend of Memory to celebrate the life of all the Colin Andersons out there instead.

God bless all our troops. God bless the President of the United States and may God bless America.

Edit This

Final Aristotle Thoughts

Final Day: Physics, Metaphysics, and God

Where is the Unmoved Mover? He is not “outside,” but I don’t think He is “far away” (as a total answer either.) Looking up, He is further away than anything, but He is also the foundation of every substance and permeates (without division) everything. He is both the closest and the furthest away thing.

“At” does not work in our relationship of God, but our movement is “towards” Him. The stars are within Him (in a sense) and (in the circular motion they use) always falling toward Him in circular motion.

God has a great deal to do with stars moving in circular motion, but is not the only cause. I think it is the incarnate nature of the stars, souls with fire bodies, that also causes them to need to move.

Where is the “that” or “there” of the Beautific Vision? It is not a place (as where-ever), but more what-ever. God is, after all, incorporeal and has no magnitude and no parts.

Aristotle: God in not “outside” as Plato puts them.

I had to go to a debate at a local church where I got to side with the divine Paul Nelson against two fine scholars from Cal State Fullerton about whether Intelligent Design is religion or science. All of us ignored the question. My main goal was to open the dialogue to the possibility of Mind as an explanatory category. There seems little willingness to allow for this second type of cause on the part of opponents of intelligent design.

I returned to class (10:30) to discover students carefully working through Aristotle on this and other topics dealing with contemplation and the divine mind. The questions were far more pointed and difficult from the students than in the debate. I love my students and I love the chance to be in a program where everything is on the table and so much can be imagined without limit.

Nicomachean Ethics 1177b 30 is key again to our discussion. Where does the impulse for contemplation come from? How do we know that we should live a divine life? It seems in Metaphysics XII, Aristotle suggests that for a short duration (hence different from God in this way) man can experience the Noetic moment of contemplation that is like God’s. We can be like God . . . though limited in duration and in essence of the person experience this contemplative moment. This is a pious impiety or better an impiety that leads to piety as we recognize our utter deficiency even in our most divine moment. When we are most like God, we are the least aware of self and most aware of Him (or the good things).

Even if there is no creation in time, God has priority over the cosmos, because the cosmos is dependent on God for its order, but God is not at all dependent on the cosmos. Foolish atheists who believe that one must believe in creation in time to believe in creation (in terms of the “first” position of God) are just wrong.

The order of the cosmos does not come (for Aristotle) from a general who gives orders, but for a general with a total lack of awareness that the cosmos even exists. It is God’s utter disregard (or lack of awareness?) of the cosmos that makes Him able to the general without being Lord.

Edit This

Thoughts on Poetics and Physics

Poetics

I missed some of the morning session on Poetics. The life of the city rightly came in front of the life contemplative! Here are some initial thoughts or questions . . .

As for the discussion, it centers on the nature of tragedy. Is there a difference between Greek tragedy and Christian? The obvious answer is hope. Is there in fact hope in some of the later tragedies?

Why is a tragedy more interesting to this group of students than comedy? I would give much for a copy of Aristotle’s work on comedy. His few (very few!) initial thoughts are so cryptic, but enough to irk me that the full picture has been (so far) lost.

Is part of the problem of Oedipus that he refused to contemplate his actions?

Did Oedipus see that will was ineffective and his escape impossible? Is Oedipus a man of action?

We have lost Aristotle’s treatise on Comedy, but still what he says is fascinating. First, he points out that it was not (until recently) taken as seriously as tragedy!

Categories, Posterior Analytics

“x is y”

A primary substance is not fit for predication. (I assume we are leaving out predication in the case of identity statements: “This man is George Bush.”

This makes the following passage puzzling, “Of species themselves, except in the case of such as are genera, no one is more truly substance than the other.”
.
I perceive a primary substance (a particular). This particular carries with it the content of the universal, but this universal is only made real in the soul.

The hard work of thinking well is stimulating, almost like a drug. If Plato is like a romantic work, then Aristotle is high and pure like a single French horn sounding in a winter morning in Upstate.

The World

Contra Plato, Aristotle argues in Metaphysics VII vi that a man is identical to his essence. Our individuality is not what gives us substance, it is nothing. What gives us substance is our essence which is the same for every human being. What we are as primary substances is identical to what we are as secondary substances. Point to any human being and you will say that this is a “man” and not this is a “short man” or this is a “plumber.”

Our essence is indentical to the secondary property that is our species. It is (technical sense) insubstantial.

At Metaphysics VII xvii (1041a) Aristotle does not use the term “ousia”, but simply says “what it is to be.” Why? Essence seems a wholly inadequate term here.

Matter? Stuff? What is it in Aristotle?

The most radical thing that occurs to me in this text is that Aristotle has presented us his thoughts in progression. The early Metaphysics need not be made “consistent” with the later parts, but viewed as the seed from which the latter parts have come. We are following the thinking of one the world’s great geniuses. . . Aristotle’s thoughts out loud. Terms develop (primary substance to informed matter), arguments force Aristotle to modify his thoughts.

What followed was a long discussion of the nature of things. Hypothesis of the group:

Form=essence=species=art or nature=shape

What is the soul in this? I am intrigued also by the relationship of circular motion to all motions and also to rest. Is there a possible rest in the Universe?

The notions of place that seems to arise from the text has this interesting result: we are in a place, exactly where we are, which is real and defined by our existence as a primary substance with the only other true place being the cosmos itself. This would make it sensible to say that I am in my own place and in being in my place with everything else am also in the cosmos and no place else.

Edit This

Aristotle for a Week End!

Aristotle: A Weekend with the Master of Those Who Would Know (with Apologies to Dante!)

I now begin the academic high point of any semester. Al Geier, professor at the University of Rochester, has come to lead a series of sessions this weekend. With the exception of a debate I will have to attend this weekend, I will spend the next three days, almost every waking hour, with a group of students attacking the text of Aristotle. Why? Sustained discussion over a short period of time enables a kind of progress not possible in a class separated by many days.

Plato lover that I am . . .I am eager to gain a greater insight into the thoughts of Aristotle. I respect him and especially the fine Aristotle scholars with whom I have studied in the past, but I want to gain the insight that will enable love.

Why does Aristotle not appeal to me? First, he seems too dogmatic. Second, the style of the Aristotle that we have is so unliterary (not fair of course to the actual Aristotle) that he is hard to love. Yet. Yet there is a sublime severity to his prose and an attempt at clarity that is missing from Plato. There is much in that.

Nicomachean Ethics:

What is Aristotle thinking when he says “human good turns out be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete?”

Love is not a feeling, but an activity. What is that activity? Why an activity? What kind of activity? If it is a flourishing of humanity, then how can this be? If it is done by reason, as I suspect, what does Aristotle mean by reason? What does it contain? It contains at least analytic thinking which does seem to be (in animals) a uniquely human task.

(God help me to flourish as man. May I never give up on the analytic thought. May I never claim to know You in Your Divine Unknowable Essence. May I always rationally pursue the Truth whatever the cost to self.)

I find it difficult to accept from Aristotle the confidence he expresses. The important point here might be that he believes happiness to be possible. If possible, then perhaps we can proceed in life with hope. It might be that this hope is what enables the dialectic to proceed.

There is a two-fold irrationality in the soul, but in a sense the desiring element at times listens and obeys reason. Why do we listen to our parents? Is it because they are wise? Is there a sort of irrational instinct to wisdom?

And contrary to my own prior thought . . . it made not just be a willingness to follow best Reason, but also to become habituated to virtue. What does it mean to contemplate? How does this tie into the Vision at the end of the Comedy? How does it relate to the simple virtue of such souls as Saint Lucy?

I must be careful not to commit the mistake of worrying about the wickedness of the many when should begin with contemplation and action on my own wickedness. I also cannot begin by despairing (so Aristotle would say) about the masses when I can help the one.

All of this (thoughts about Dante and Aristotle) turn us toward the nation of contemplation. There is a divine thing . . . the life of contemplation that may finish the fully happy, fully human life. (By gum, Aristotle’s habit of just announcing a thing true is irritating.) When we contemplate, we imitate God (and this seems true) whose very act of creation is an act of contemplation.

At 1177b, Aristotle seems to find the best life (contemplative) as too high for man. To the extent that something divine is present in him that he will do this thing. Habituation may the human thing while contemplation is the divine thing. Is this a dim image of the “image of God” theology in Aristotle? Contemplation may make us immortal.

This is a critical passage and perhaps the peak of the entire book.

He says, “. . . reason more than anything else is man.” The full contemplative life is too high for man and yet he concludes by saying that reason is to be man as man. He is not just saying “do the best you can,” but that to the greatest extent possible make ourselves deathless.

What can this mean? Can contemplation make us immortal? How can the end of man be the divine? Is this theosis? Is man the rational being capable of theosis? Or is just that thinking on great things makes us great so that thinking on divine things makes us like God?

An Outline of this Passage:

Such a contemplative life is too high for man:
a. not possible for man
b. possible on account something divine in him.
Contemplation superior to the composite nature as divine activity is the rest of virtue.

However, if reason is divine (compared to human things), then the living reasonably is divine compared to living humanly.
In this we will make ourselves immortal. (Al believes this to be the key phrase in the passage.)
We will be completely happy without being divine.

(Contemplation is not a sort of passive thinking, but reasoning about the divine or true things. It is a mental activity, not a mental passivity.) Can anything other pure intellectual activity (something like martyrdom) be equivalent to the life of the mind? I do not contemplate for the sake of helping others or doing something else . . . instead I contemplate for the sake of seeing first the good things and then the God who possesses them.

Edit This

Immigration is About People Without Hope

Take a trivial example of law breaking: downloading music off the Internet. Before Itunes, if you wanted obscure music by your favorite group and did not live in a major metro area, the easiest, and often the only way, to get that music was with swapping software. It was illegal, but hard to feel guilty about downloading a blue grass version of “Amazing Grace” from a group that stopped singing in the forties. I am not arguing that this was good thinking, but it was easy for otherwise good people to do. The odds of getting caught were small, the social sanction for doing it tiny, and the alternatives (relatively) costly. The other group of down loaders wanted to steal for whatever reason. They hated recording companies and were never going to pay a dime for music under any circumstance. By allowing for cheap and easy downloads, the music industry split the otherwise decent, but sorely tempted types, from the hard core music thieves. It did not solve the problem of the hard core thief, who continues to steal music, but it helped a good bit.

If the industry had just gone after theives, making no difference in the two groups, the public would not have supported what it would have taken to make a difference, no money would have been made, otherwise decent people would have been hurt, and the problem would only be larger.

That is the problem with a “law and order” approach to immigration that does not include a guest worker program. If you are not in this position, imagine living in Mexico a poor country that borders on chaotic. You have a family and you want to give that family a better life. You also love your country and your culture, but are not sure you can give your family that good life if you stay. The temptation to cross the border is very great. Of course, raising the cost and risk of making that crossing will deter some, but unlike the simple desire for music the need to help your family is overwhelming. You are not a “law breaking type” but you are faced with an overwhelming temptation to break man’s law, the artificial borders of a nation, to do what is right for your family.

On top of that, we have American industries who want and need the workers since our culture of death crowd has cut off population growth from most native born Americans.

We must find some way to make this sort of illegal immigrant legal, because he is going to come no matter what we do until Mexico improves as a society.

It is impossible to imagine a deterrent that will stop this sort of good man that can be ethically practiced. The nation will not support shooting families at the border, thank God. There is a limit to how high we are willing to raise the price and there are millions of people who will pay almost any price to get here. It is impossible not to sympathize with this plight even if we wished it was not so.

That is why with increased enforcement we need, really need, something like a guest worker program proposed by the President. We can split off those hard working souls who want to save their families, make them legal, treat them as humans, and accept the reality that they will come regardless. The music industry had to face this and so do conservatives. Most Mexicans would stay in their nation if they could, so a guest worker program allows for visits. We should also make legal immigration easier for those workers we need so that those good persons are not tempted by an easier illegal route.

Of course all of this must come with increased enforcement of our border laws for the hard core criminals who will defy the law and whom, even though a small minority, give immigration (legal or illegal) a bad name. Some fencing, yes. More border police, of course. But we also need a way to split the otherwise good Mexican immigrant from the illegals who no nation wants. One hopes the Senate can stop listening to radicals on both sides of the debate and adopt a mix of carrot (more legal workers we need and are going to get anyway) and stick.

We should also pray for peace, justice, and prosperity in Mexico. This is the only real solution to the problem of the border.

Edit This

CortaSlim Religion: the Dan Brown Scam

CortaSlim Religion: the Dan Brown Scam

You know it is too good to be true, but you want it to be real. Remember when you could not turn on the radio without hearing an ad for CortaSlim? It promised to strip off the pounds and as someone who struggles with weight, and hates his daily trip to the gym, it was very appealing.

It sounded so good that I knew it had to be a scam. Keeping my weight down requires treadmill work, lifting, and saying “enough” to my favorite foods. Surely if someone had found a way to avoid all of this, there would be no need to advertise on talk-radio. We would all be lined up to buy. A little Google research and I discovered that the whole thing was useless, backed by folk with questionable credentials, and under fire by many reputable groups with no ax to grind.

Yet millions bought CortaSlim for the simple reason that it promised to solve a big problem for money. It also blamed somebody other than self (the need to block a mysterious thing making us fat with a pill) while offering superficial tough talk. Everybody is busy and if you could trade cash for solution to a big problem most of us, who value our time over money, would go for it.

Let’s call that the CortaSlim deception, where a shyster convinces us a big need can be met by a little investment.

The Da Vinci Code is a spiritual variation of this scheme. Most of us know we need some soul work, don’t feel we have the time for the demands of organized religion with all, and would rather have something that pats us on the back than points out our spiritual flabbiness. We are sinners, but don’t want to hear it anymore than the junk food junkie wants to be told that he has to cut out the fat to get rid of his fat.

The problem with Christianity is that it keeps telling us that we are in spiritual trouble, because we are bad. Instead of this hard news, we want some new revelation to show that our religious problems were caused by the trained religious telling us we are bad, just as many diet scams depend on arguing that nutritionists are making us fat!

What do I say to a person who wants to believe in the Code? I sympathize. I get it, since I too want something for almost nothing, but feel the need to warn the person that Revelation is unlikely to come in a cheap paperback that cannot stand the light of even a few years of critical scrutiny. Brown and the Gospel of John both claim to have the truth about Jesus. Read both and make your own judgment about which sounds like it is more likely to be true. Would you have died, as the apostles did die, for Dan Brown’s Jesus?

It goes all the way back to the Gnostics in Biblical times. Everybody wants something big for just a little bit of effort. Give the Gnostic guru some coin and he will pull back the curtain and show you how everything works. The Bible is on the Internet for anyone to read and you can join the Church and participate in its service without ever giving a dime. Try it. You will find that the Church does not demand money before letting you in on its secrets.

Christianity, like any candidate for truth any non-CortaSlim religion, does the hard work of history. It finds eye witnesses for its biggest claims. It conducts its arguments in public and allows critics to see its intellectual struggles. Do you doubt this? Go get a copy of the Bible from even the most conservative of churches and you will find footnotes all through it showing the textual and translation struggles of the scholars who produced your English Bible. Variant readings will be given, whole passages, even beloved ones like the story of the Woman caught in Adultery will be challenged, and the disagreements between source texts will be in full view. Now notice how little it impacts the basic message. The Bible stands up to scholarship.

Does Dan Brown do this? He does not. Don’t trust a book that claims to be the truth that does not.

I am told the CortaSlim people have made a mint on their too-good-to-be true claims and I know Dan Brown has made a bundle by writing a book that he says is fiction when he cannot support the lies, but coyly claims is fact when not being challenged. CortaSlim plays on our self-loathing, our laziness, and our dreams of something for almost nothing. The Da Vinci Code plays on our knowledge that spirituality matters, but our desire to avoid the rigors of real religion.

Just as physical health is too important to trust to the quacks who made CortaSlim, so our spiritual health is too important to trust to someone so badly educated he gets almost none of his history right. Organized religion gets some just criticism in our culture, but two thousand years of survival in the market place of ideas has its advantages. It is simply more likely to be true than whatever New Age nostrums that we could cook up in the tiny amount of time most of us give to our spiritual health.

If it is just about the money, then I get it. The Code is a decent airport paperback . . . the mental equivalent of watching a Gilligan’s Island rerun . . . allowing for a mental nap when trapped on a plane. However, I keep meeting people who take the thing seriously, who wonder if Christianity really has been hiding Gnostic gospels that they could have checked out of their public library. It is astonishing to me, as if they were pleading with me to do something to get the government to rescue Gilligan and the Castaways or find Fox and Mulder to uncover the UFO conspiracy or finally allow Buffy and Angel to wipe out the vampires of California. . . and then I remember the temptation of the CortaSlim devils who hear the heart cry of such folk, men and women whose public education has been stripped of any sensible discussion of religion, but who have God shaped holes in their hearts. The hole needs filling and CortaSlim religion promises to fill it with no uncomfortable demands, no need to change, and no God who refuses to change with to fit the agenda of our times.

I remember that you cannot cheat an honest man. He knows that CortaSlim is too good to be true, too cheap to be real, too easy to be worthwhile. He also knows that the gods of Dan Brown are too small to be worthy of worship, too facile to save, and too glib to stand footnotes. God help us all, but the road to Hell for most of us is surely chosen with good intentions mixed with spiritual laziness.

My favorite sources of information:

1. One should actually read the Gospels to see if they are what Brown claims. Is Jesus of the Gospels the misogynist Brown paints? Try the [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=47 ]Gospel of John first.
2. Read an early Church Father like [ http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html ]Justin Martyr who had to deal with shysters like Brown in his own time.
3. Are the Gnostic gospels hidden? Do they say what Brown claims? Read [ http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html ]one here. Note its view of women while you are at it!
4. If what you want is the truth on the Code, I like Mark Roberts of this very blog best with the [ http://www.go.family.org/davinci/ ]Focus on the Family response a close second.

Edit This

Bush and Immigration: He is No Politician

Give George Bush credit. He is behaving in office in exactly the manner people always claim they wish a leader would. He is trying to lead, doing what he thinks is right without regard to those opinion polls. For that he has been labeled stubborn, stupid, and senseless of the damage he is doing to his own Republican Party.

Of course, George Bush is almost surely right about everything he is saying about immigration. Hardly anyone argues with the details of his proposal. Does anyone believe we can or should deport eleven million people from the United States? Nobody sensible does, but there exists a big chunk of folk will not rest satisfied without talk of it. They fail to understand that Mexico’s loss in this case is our gain. People are an asset in a free society not a liability. Bush has also embraced moderate steps to control the border: some fencing, more policing, a limited use of the National Guard, and more enforcement of hiring laws. How could a free society tolerate much more than that? If Bush and Congress follow through, we will have to endure the unsavory sight of a reverse-Berlin wall to keep people out, which if necessary is still not something that one would wish to expand. Our own military being used in police operations, except in the circumspect way urged by Bush is also not something that a person who loves federalism and freedom can support.

Bush is in favor of tougher enforcement, a reasonable plan to legalize the workers we need, and an attempt not to start a rush on the Border by extreme actions in either directions. If he came out with too much enforcement too loudly, there would be an unstoppable flood of illegals rushing to beat the crack down. If he came out with too little, there would only be an increase in the steady stream of workers coming North. Our economy needs these people, our demographics demand them, and by and large most of these immigrants are good for our culture. We need a way for them to come easily, legally, since a society cannot tolerate scoff-laws. Bush is trying to find such a way. Just as the Apple store with cheap legal downloads put a crimp in illegal use of software, so easier access to legal work permits will lessen the temptations of honest Mexicans in search of a better life to break the law for the sake of their families. Wouldn’t you ignore border laws if you could raise your family in the United States? We need a way to help the good folk to obey the law without leading them into such temptation.

So at the risk of alienating everyone by doing the right thing. . . by ignoring sound bit politics for substance, the President has proposed something that can be done and that stands the best chance of actually making a bad situation better. Utopian schemes that cannot pass a bitterly divided Congress are useless however appealing.

The key question for me is this: Will the President’s men follow through and push for both parts of the President’s wise plan? Guest workers without tougher enforcement (including some fencing) is giving up on the rule of law at our borders. Tougher enforcement without guest workers is an invitation for mayhem at our borders since people will keep coming. . . some to die and others to suffer.

Edit This

Thoughts on Mother’s Day

How can you tell your mother you love her without feeling foolish? I begin to say what my own mother means to me and I sound like a greeting card to myself. The Victorians had a vocabulary for loving mothers and not much ability to make fun of them. We are good at mocking, but very bad at sincere love. Long ago I learned that if I told people how I really feel about them that to post-modern ears it would sound false or like flattery. What is to be done?

If you love your mother, think she is great, think that her hand that rocked the cradle was more important than the hand of the so-called rulers, who will believe you? We assume all the purples in our prose are just painted on, as if there were no real rose, lavender, and other glorious tints in nature. You will be analyzed and so many eyes will roll over you that you will be left with prose as flat as USA Today’s.

Watching late nineties and early twenty-first century television reminded me how much television writers hate their families. Perhaps hating your family is the basis for good comedy writing, I do not know, but my experience says it is not the basis for a happy life. Somehow I cannot find my mother on television: she is real and none of those mothers are, but they have mocked all the real speeches I could make or used them up long ago in commercials.

My mother was kind, gentle, even elegant. She could make poverty genteel, learning fun, and follow an argument all day. She loved the old ways, but was not afraid to challenge any convention getting in the way of spiritual growth. That does not sound real in a society where getting real always entails admitting horrible truths.

How can I say how good my mother was when television has taught me that loving my mother begins (like a late Roseanne episode) by listing her many faults and then, after that painful “honesty, finally a big hug when to the oohs of the audience the kids admit that we are still family and we loved her anyway?”

What if getting real begins by admitting that my mom did the best she could and gave us, on the whole, a happy childhood?

I don’t love my mother for her vices, which were few, but for her virtues which were many.

But it is o.k. to love your mother, it is good for you, and Hollywood writers don’t think you are cool anyway.

Does telling the story of a good mother demean those who did not have one? Society tells me that one of the worst things I can do is to make someone feel bad. I had a good mother and God knows I better hide it or some demographic group, like Hollywood writers, will feel even angrier. So we are taught to dredge up the bad times, blame those times for every single thing we have done badly, and pretend that the time our mom lost her temper compares to the horrific harridans some folk have faced.

Or does the fact that my mother was decent, Christian, and thoughtful give hope? She was not perfect, but on the whole I have nothing about which a just complaint could be made. My mother loved me far more than she ever harmed me and my childhood was happier for her existence. My best memories hover round my family and my mother is a big reason why. I come from a happy family much of it formed by a good and noble mother and God help me I refuse to deny it. Her very imperfections prove that doing one’s duty, following Christian reason and passion can make a difference for the good. If she can make it, then what is my excuse? I know that being a decent parent can be done by real, messed up humans, but I also know that this admission means some readers will turn aside and out of their own pain mutter ‘get real.”

But it is o.k. to love your mother, it gives hope to your neighbors, and their despair will not get any brighter if you join them in it anyway.

I have a good mother and I love her. She stuck by us and by our father through the difficult times. We watched her mature, she was after all eighteen when I was born, and become wise.

Part of the problem is the sheer amount of marketing and story telling we consume. If you see the same story enough times, even the truest of them becomes worn out and tired. It then becomes clever to mock those stories or tell different ones. Too many big hug commercials and when you finally come to giving your mother a big hug, it feels contrived. Having learned to watch life on television, if we are not careful we start watching our own lives instead of living them. We hug our mothers with Hallmark’s words instead of our own.

But it is o.k. to love your mother, she is real and not just a marketing pitch, and cynicism is not what made her stay up late with you when you had chicken pox.

All over America there are good mothers with children who love them. We have problems. . . and I surely have not lived up to the virtues I was taught at home. . . but they were not mostly due to our fine up bringing. We had choices given to us by our loving parents and we misused them, but not entirely. Many of us have righted ourselves and have returned to the paths our mothers taught us. For that our mothers should receive praise and love. They chose life, hope, and love over death, cynicism, and libertine ways. . . at least my mother did and I love her and praise her for it. I rise up from my couch where Hollywood would keep my in a cynical doze and call her blessed. . . and go get some sun and exercise as she taught me.

It is not hard. Use simple words and mean them. Gather your courage, leave the shoulder shrugging, eye rolling side of your personality for the political season when it is merited, and tell your mother, if she was as good as mine, that you love her. Here are mine if it helps:

“I love you, Mom. You were good to us, continue to be a source of wisdom. I appreciate you and I love you. Thanks for getting me off to a good start and being ready to take me back when I blew it.”

Edit This

The Search for a Gay Culture: Mr. Sullivan and the Christianity

Fred Sanders does not get the appeal of Andrew Sullivan or why he is suddenly, sort of, famous. Early on Andrew was that nearly unique American figure: the openly gay writer whose every thought could not be explained by his libido.

Sullivan seemed an exception to a general rule: being gay is all about sex. Why would a tiny group of people engaged in a biologically fruitless act be given equal status with normal marriage? Advocacy groups replied, “Being gay is not just about sex. it is who I am.”

The difficulty has always been that in the real world gay “culture” has been all about (or one step away from) the sex. The internet will make that point quickly for you if you doubt it. Sullivan saw the destructive promiscuity of his sub-culture and is part of a tiny movement inside a tiny group that wants marriage. In that sense, he deviated from the libertine norms of his group and drew attention to himself. Soon, however, the “family values” homosexuality he promoted began to look like the entire lense through which he viewed reality.

One way to spot a vice has always been (since at least Aristotle) to look and see whether it promotes more thought about more things. . . a more interesting human being. . . or more and more thought about the thing being done. Sullivan has provides yet another example that coming out of the closet soon becomes the only thing a person does.

Edit This

Immigration: What should a conservative Christian think?

I am curious what my blogging pals here at Middlebrow think about immigration. As a traditional Christian, I feel compelled to help the stranger in my midst. On the other hand, nothing in the Bible says that I have to allow law breakers to over run my community. Tough call.

In the end, I am not for open borders with Mexico, but for a much easier means for folk to get here legally. People are the source of power for a country. Mexico’s population loss seems to me to be our gain. . . who would not want the benefit from all those images of God coming to America?

So call me, like the President, a fan of making it easier for folk to come here legally to work, with some pathway to full citizenship for those who play by the rules, while trying to weed out the no goods and criminals. All the plans I have seen for securing the borders seem worse than the present situation. (How in the world would we deport eleven million souls humanely. . . What would we call the holding areas? Wouldn’t they look a great deal like the Superdome during Katrina pretty quickly?. . . even assuming that the act of deporting so many people would not in itself deprive us of the human potential such folk represent?)

Edit This

The Da Vinci Code and an Appeal to his Holiness Archbishop Demetrios

Faithful Christians all over the world face the appearance of a new movie, “The Da Vinci Code” that will slander the faith once delivered to the apostles and lie to millions about the nature and actions of the Son of God. Of course it is just a work of fiction, badly written, but it also claims to relate religious truth and I have personally talked to many people confused by it. While we all applaud the right of Americans to make any film they wish, I also applaud the right of Americans to say that a particularly noxious film is bad.

I was pleased to see that the Greek Archdiocese has opened a web site for the faithful dealing with this film. My own school, Biola University and the Torrey Honors Institute, has tried to be at the forefront of also providing resources to turn slander into Socratic discussion in good Greek tradition! However, in the last few days Tom Hanks, a person who has claimed to be part of the Orthodox Church, has attacked anyone opposed to the film.

Should the Orthodox be involved in making such films? Of course, they have the right, but should they use their freedom in this way? Would the Church advise members to make such entertainment?

All of us understand that no priest should reveal the private spiritual journey of a member. I thank God for that, but this person has both claimed to be Orthodox, made this film, and then attacked those, like Greek Archdiocese, who have complained about aspects of the film.

I know that the judgments of God and His church are the same for the rich and powerful as for the humble. Mr. Hanks just made a film that at the very least makes into entertainment ancient lies about our Lord. He now defends that choice in the public square and has, by implication, attacked your own choice to set up a web site condemning the film. Was he right? Has he acted as you would advise your spiritual children to act?

Edit This

The Pity of Andrew Sullivan, Christian

If you missed it, Andrew Sullivan newly famous for being conservative, sort of, and gay, really, has decided all that stands between Evangelicals and becoming just like the Taliban is our secular Constitution which we wish to destroy. Andrew Sullivan says he is a Christian, but with a new definition of what it means to be Chrisian. The sad case of Andrew Sullivan, once a conservative, once a Catholic, is a perfect image of the wages of sin. Sullivan used to be interesting, writing about many things with many points of view, some quirky, some fun, some insightful. But Sullivan decided that his urge to a particular sin was more powerful than his Christian commitment and now everything he writes can be understood through the single reductive desire to justify that sin. When Saint Paul said the wages of sin is death, he was of course right, but I have never understood before the pitiable fact that the mental atrophy comes long before the physical death.

Edit This

Evolution, Design, and Atheism

Tonight Antony Flew received the Phillip E. Johnson Award at Biola University.

The award is dedicated to those who will pursue truth where it leads. Flew received the award and confirmed his intellectual journey had moved him from atheism to deism. He quoted the Socratic dictum that one should follow the argument where ever it leads. . .

We were frequently reminded in the ceremony that Flew had attended the Socratic Club first organized by C.S. Lewis at Oxford. Though still unpersuaded by Lewis’ Christian theism, Flew has had the courage to change a long held position in the face of evidence.

To me this is a good reminder that philosophy is not endless logic chopping, post-modern nonsense not with standing. Philosophers do change their minds and arguments do evolve (even if life does not) under the pressure of discussion. It is a hard road. People who will not follow the path of reason are missing out on the joy of that journey.

Sadder still are Christians too silly to see that the Divine Word, the Reason behind the Universe, under girds any quest for truth that will follow the Ideas in His Divine Mind. Both narrow minded “fundamentalists” and post-modern academics have given up on the path of Socrates and reason. It is their loss.

Perhaps the only thing sillier are those people who will pant that Flew is no Christian yet, but only a deist. . . and of course this is true. But if Aquinas had decided to become an agnostic at the end of his career, atheists would have been right to see progress, even if it was not “all the way.”

Edit This