Sign Of The Times

This morning I received the following e-mail message (names redacted):

We have been asked by Ministerial and Member Services to be careful about sending out prayer requests. Only United Church of God members are meant to receive all of the prayer requests and updates that are sent out locally or from the home office. So, please, do not forward emails that we send you out of respect for other people’s privacy. The batch mailing that we send out does not include any non-United member addresses. While it is understandable that you may want to share information with some former members, the explanation below should help clarify why that may not a good idea:

“We want to remind everyone to take special care when forwarding or publishing prayer requests. There is a lot of personal information given in the prayer requests that we send out from the home office: addresses, names of children, details of health conditions, etc. Some of our ministers and members have re-posted this information on their local websites or in other areas that are not password protected. Once that is done, this information becomes available to the general public and may put our members at risk.

We will continue to send prayer requests to the ministry with this information, but we want to remind you of the sensitive nature of this material. We do not want in any way to limit the number of cards sent to those on our prayer list. If you forward prayer requests to an e-mail distribution list that reaches non-members, you might consider removing the address information before sending them on. The addresses will still be available through the password protected UCG prayer page at http://members.ucg.org/ucgprayer and you could point members to that location.”

Even though I currently live in Thailand, one of my responsibilities is adding prayer requests to my local congregational website “back home.” Even though I am relatively public and upfront about my own personal information, so that people are without excuse if they do not come to me personally about matters they are unclear about concerning what I discuss, I realize that not everyone is so forthright and open about communication and that some people can be greatly bothered by personal information about how they can be reached as well as their own medical condition to reach unfriendly people. Apparently not everyone is so discreet.

It is a lamentable condition, and a sign of our times, that there are people who like to take advantage of personal contact information to harass others from different churches, whether that is spreading lies and slander or trying to convince them to join up. This sort of reprehensible activity has been warned about within scripture for at least a couple thousand years (Paul himself writes about such busybodies and slanderers in books like 2 Timothy and Titus, for example). That said, the internet makes this sort of activity particularly convenient, as a staggering amount of information about our lives is available online. Once, for example, I found my old personal address as an undergraduate student had been posted online so that it could be seen on google from a private e-mail I had sent, which I found rather horrifying, even if I no longer lived there.

We cannot assume that just because we have good intentions and that we have some kind of lingering past friendship with people that they (or the people they now fellowship with) will use such information in a godly fashion. Lest we forget, we are dealing with people who have practiced slander for months, even years, against others, poisoning both their own minds and those of others with lies and libels and falsehoods to justify their own pride and ego, and so far without repentance. They have stolen and cheated, again without repentance. Therefore, we must assume that at least some of these people will use any personal information in an unfriendly and hostile and harassing way, because that is the way they have behaved for years now.

It is sad that this is the way that some people behave, but it is the truth, and we need to recognize such and be discreet in our own conduct so that we do not give other people ways to communicate us that we would find bothersome. After all, one can always delete internet spam, but when people are sending you harassing phone calls and making personal visits, it becomes much more irksome and uncomfortable. Additionally, we must also respect the privacy of other people, because we cannot assume that other people are as open to communication as we ourselves might be. In so doing, we look out for our brethren by preserving their peace and tranquility from slanderers and malicious people only seeking sleep for the slaughter. Let us therefore show love for our brethren by not giving their personal information out to the enemies of God’s people, even if we might consider them former friends.

Somaliland Update: Don’t Look Back

It looks like Somaliland took advantage of the opportunity of the London conference and made a clear case for independence in front of an international audience of policy makers, making a principled stand rather than allowing itself to be sucked into a quagmire, as some had feared [1]. Instead, in both words and actions Somaliland was able to make its point across. Now we will see if the rest of the world can pay attention.

From the perspective of Somaliland, the quote from Somaliland’s President Ahmed Silanyo had to have been a highlight, making clear his accountability to a democratic people who had chosen by their own will to regain their independence from Somalia. There is no going back to the pre-1991 borders given the will of the Somaliland people. Additionally, President Silanyo made a principled rejection of top-down solutions and called for Somalia to copy the bottom-up government based in large part on indigenous cultural traditions. He additionally closed strongly, calling on an active international effort to recognize Somaliland’s independence to an audience that included US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the UN General Secretary [2].

Nor was President Silanyo the only Somalinders to make their presence known–as the Somaliland rally in front of 10 Downing Street appears to have been a success as well [3]. Perhaps in light of this, the international movers and shakers adopted a resolution that appears favorable to Somaliland, at least as written. Specifically, the London Conference rejected a further extension of the Transnational Federal Government, called on greater anti-corruption efforts, bottom-up legitimate government institutions, and a clarification of the relationship between Somalila and Somaliland [4]. For Somaliland, such a clarification an only mean a voluntary acceptance of Somaliland’s independence on the part of any permanent Somali government. There is nothing in the communique of the London Conference that speaks against Somaliland’s interests, at the very least, which should go along way to assuage those who were worried about Somaliland’s first foray into international conferences regarding Somalia.

But Somaliland has not been merely about all talk without action. Rather, Somaliland has, as it could be expected, continued to show by its actions its firm intent to act independent and ensure both its role as a positive one for law and order within the region against piracy as well as its intent to further the interests of peace and its own economic interests. It should not be surprising that while the plans of the London Conference were ongoing that Somaliland also backed up its words with actions.

For example, recently Somaliland and the Seychelles formalized an agreement to transfer prisoners tried in the Seychelles to prison on Somaliland so that the first prisoners will arrive in Somaliland by the end of March 2012 [5]. The fact that Somaliland is not only willing to abide by international law concerning piracy, but actively enforce it on those who break the law (especially in neighboring Puntland, a known pirate haven), should signify to the international community the worthiness of Somaliland as a state, if such worthiness needed to be proved.

And it’s not only the men trying to do their part for international peace, but even Somaliland’s women are trying to get in on the act. The G40. which somehow Somaliland has observer status to, is seeking gender-sensitive budgeting as well as a 25% quota for women in the parliament. At any rate, whatever one’s position about the quotas, it is worthwhile to note that even without recognition Somaliland manages to set a positive example for its rather benighted region, receiving credit for stability and democracy in a region known for neither [6].

Additionally, it is not only in international institutions but also business that Somaliland is looking to improve. PetroTrans has scrapped, for the time being, plans to open up a natural gas refinery in Berbera, but has finalized plans to expand the port in Berbera by the end of the year. Additionally, PetroTrans is also looking to help build a pipeline from South Sudan through Ethiopia to Djibouti, working to cut Sudan out of the shipment of South Sudan’s lucrative oil supplies [7]. PetroTrans appears to be seeking to corner the market on the developing suppliers of oil in the Horn of Africa before the rest of the world jumps on the bandwagon. It appears to be a savvy move.

So, this past week has been a week offering a lot of promise for Somaliland. A successful international conference debut regarding Somalila, successful business and geopolitial meetings, and the promise of a better future beckons. Somaliland is telling the world in one voice in a variety of ways that it is looking forward, not looking back. It would be wise for the rest of the world to do the same regarding Somaliland and the Horn of Africa. Backwards lies only despair; forward lies hope and progress, if we are willing to grasp it.

[1] http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/somaliland-update-risk-opportunity-the-2012-london-conference/

[2] http://somaliland247.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/ldnsomalia-at-london-conference-on-somalia-president-of-somaliland-calls-on-the-international-community-to-recognize-his-country/

[3] http://somaliland247.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/ldnsomalia-london-rally-for-somaliland-international-recognition-outside-10-downing-street-2nd-february-2012/

[4] http://somaliland247.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/ldsomalia-london-conference-on-somalia-and-somaliland-communique/

[5] http://somaliland247.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/ldnsomalia-seychelles-and-somaliland-taking-steps-towards-prisoner-transfers/

[6] http://somaliland247.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/women-building-peace-in-somaliland/

[7] http://somaliland247.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/petrotrans-negotiates-to-extend-somaliland-port/

Nothing But Trouble

From a utilitarian perspective, Im Mee (which means she-bear in Thai), is a pretty useless animal. This talking dog, which was obtained by our driver from the seven rai (about three acre) property that Legacy acquired earlier this year, loves to laze about during the day, is a complete failure at chasing, much less catching, the feral cats that are around, and appears to enjoy digging up the stones that our new teacher Abigail has been putting for a garden next to the teacher’s house. In addition, Im Mee has some bad habits like trying to interfere with class in the computer room as well as yowling and rustling leaves during the night. She seems nocturnal, almost, and that is a bit of a hassle.

There is one skill that Im Mee possesses, and it is one that can be cute at times but is also very irritating at other times. Whenever you go to her, she will lay down on her back and put her paws up near her face. She apparently is good at being submissive, but it is at times a supremely irritating thing, when the pose is done in absence of any kind of obedience. Though ritual submission seems to be a popular thing here in Thailand, being a Westerner it rather irks me when it is done by something that enjoys eating food and causing trouble and which does not really do anything useful.

Yesterday evening, of course, Im Mee tried to follow me home, and followed me all the way to the gate of the clinic before yowling something that seemed like goodnight. Every time I would turn around to look at her along the way she would get down in her ritual prostration pose, and then she nearly got herself hit by a car to boot. Needless to say, for a variety of reasons, we hope that Im Mee gets moved to a better place. It’s rough to see her eat food without hunting, disrupt work we are trying to do around the school grounds, and provide nothing cuter than a puppy dog face and some lying on the floor. It would be nice if we could find a cute and practical dog who might lay down the law against the feral cats around. We can dream, though.

What’s In A Greeting?: The Epistles of Paul

What information is conveyed in a greeting? Greetings are usually fairly short, but even though short and often conventional, there are important bits of information that filter through simply because of what those conventions are. Let us examine, for example, the extant letters of Paul, to see what conventions he used and what information he conveyed. We know of the greetings for thirteen letters of his [1]. Let us compare the letters in roughly chronological order and then see what sort of connections we can draw from them.

The Greetings Of Paul

Let us turn to the thirteen books of Paul and look at their greetings in a roughly chronological order. We will look at Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy. The greetings for these thirteen books are as follows:

Galatians 1:1-5: Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through men but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia: grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”

1 Thessalonians 1:1: “Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Thessalonians 1:1-2: “Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

1 Corinthians 1:1-3: “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and hours: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Corinthians 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia: grace to you and peace from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Romans 1:1-7: “Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the Gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of god with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead. Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, among whom you are also the called of Jesus Christ; to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Ephesians 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Philippians 1:1-2: “Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and deacons: grace to you and peace form God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Colossians 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Philemon :1-3: “Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer, to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

1 Timothy 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope, to Timothy, a true son in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Titus 1:1-4: “Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgement of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior; to Titus, a true son in our common faith: grace, mercy, and peace from god the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.”

2 Timothy 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, to Timothy, a beloved son: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.”

A (Brief) Comparative Analysis

What sort of patterns and similarities can we find in the greetings to these thirteen letters? The greetings of two of the letters, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, which were written very close together in time, are identical, and the remainder of the letters show some variation in form but also a commonality of language that shows through even in translation. All thirteen letters end the greeting by wishing for grace and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ (though there is slight variation in how this is worded), and the last three of Paul’s letters (the pastoral epistles), add mercy to the grace and peace wished to the letter’s recipients.

In all of the letters Paul is (not surprisingly) listed as the author. Timothy is listed as a co-author in six of the letters (1st & 2nd Thessalonians, 2nd Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon). Silvanus (also called Silas), is listed as a co-author in 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, and the rather obscure Sosthenes, whose claim to fame (such as it is) is being beaten in an anti-Semitic mob in Corinth in Acts 18:17 as the head of the synagogue who had opposed Paul (and then apparently was later converted to Christianity), is listed as the co-author of 1st Corinthians. All of the letters are considered to be Paul’s, and what role (if any) the co-authors had in shaping the material of the letters where they are listed is unclear, there being no letters extant from any of the co-authors themselves apart from Paul.

In the various greetings, Paul gives himself different “titles.” Often, but not always, he is an apostle by the will of God, not of man (as opposed to self-appointed apostles). Sometimes he is a bondservant (or slave) of Jesus Christ, emphasizing his obedience to the will of God. He also calls himself a prisoner of God, on account of his being (in some of the letters) imprisoned for his ministry. In addition, he tends to give titles to his coauthors, usually calling them “our brother.” Also, he gives his audience titles, sometimes calling them the brethren of a particular city, or saints. Others are “fellow soldiers,” like Archippus. At other times the overseers (elders) and deacons are noted, as in Philippians.

Some of the greetings hint the thematic concerns of the letter as a whole. 2 Timothy and Titus, both written toward the end of Paul’s life, hint at the concerns about death and eternal life that Paul faced as his death approached. Romans provides a lengthy historical introduction to a congregation that he did not know largely in person, and that hinted at the thematic concerns of the promise of Jesus Christ through the prophets (as far back as Genesis), as well as the fact that Christianity was for all of the nations, and not for the Israelites (or Jews) only. These concerns, which Paul deals with much more in depth throughout Romans, he hints at in his lengthy introduction. Additionally, the introduction of 1st Corinthians hints at the moral concerns dealing with those who are sanctified, but are not really acting like it. In the greater length given to the greetings, there are hints of particular concerns within the letter itself.

It is also important to note what is not present in any of the greetings of Paul. We see that Paul clearly marks two beings, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. Though we are prone of thinking only of Jesus Christ as our savior, Paul himself also refers (in 1 Timothy, for example) to God the Father as our Savior, through His resurrecting Jesus Christ through His power from the dead. But Paul nowhere, not a single time, speaks of the Holy Spirit as a personage apart from the Father and the Son. Only one time does the Holy Spirit itself seem to be referred at all in the greetings (as the Spirit of holiness in Romans 1:4), and here it is more of an impersonal declaration by virtue of the resurrection of Christ in the spirit. This seems a striking omission, and any serious study of the biblical view of the nature of God must recognize the greetings of Paul as bearing heavily on that question.

Conclusion

The thirteen introductions of the Pauline epistles offer some fine and intriguing greetings to various individuals and congregations. They offer enough similarity to recognize the same hand in their authorship, one deeply concerned to defend the will of God, show the origin of peace, grace, and mercy in our lives, and are also careful to provide blessings to God the Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. The letters show attention to the honor and respect due to the recipients of the letters as well as to the author (as well as his associates). Even though the greetings of the various letters of Paul are ‘conventional,’ the convention itself teaches us something useful (for example, the binetarian view of the present Godhead according to Paul), as well as Paul’s upfront claiming of his apostleship from God and his love and concern for Timothy and Titus as sons. Let us therefore gain such insight as is possible from these greetings, especially as they help us to understand Paul and his mindset in writing his letters better.

[1] It is often thought, especially by Eastern churches, that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, even though the book is formally anonymous. Be that as it may, the book itself lacks the greeting of a letter, so it may be safely left to the side in this case, regardless of the questions as to its authorship.

Children Of Fortune

As someone who likes to pick up on the habits of writers and the patterns of speech they use (being a writer and a speaker with definite patterns of vocabulary that reflect deeper connections and identities), I thought it would be worthwhile today to reflect on a little noticed connection between three “late” Jane Austen novels. Since I am not a scholar of the Regency period, nor am I intimately aware of any Regency era authors apart from Jane Austen, there is a matter I have seen briefly and significantly dealt with in Mansfield Park, Emma, and Persuasion, in such a way that I think it a bit of a touchstone to how those characters are to be viewed by the reader, as well as how they were viewed by Austen.

In particular, there are three people referred to, one in each novel, as a “child of fortune,” or described in similar language, and all of them share specific characteristics. Let us examine each of them in turn and then see what tentative conclusions can be drawn from the connection. These tentative conclusions are all the more tentative because it is possible that the expression child of fortune is used by Jane Austen in a way that reflects some sort of societal viewpoint concerning fortune. If that is so, I know nothing of it. At the very least, there are enough indications that, at least after the publication of Pride & Prejudice that Jane Austen herself had some definite ideas of what it meant to be a child of fortune.

The expression first comes in a sarcastic reference by the heroine of the story, Fanny Price, in her own thoughts to Mary Crawford’s good fortune in having Tom Bertram die so that Edmund can inherit the fortune of the Bertram family himself [1]. Here Mary Crawford is called a “child of luck” for her good fortune. As it happens, Mary does not turn out to be a child of fortune, at least not with Edmund Bertram, because Tom does not die, Henry Crawford breaks up the marriage of Edmund’s sister Maria with Mr. Rushworth, and then Mary shows herself to be less than morally upright herself in Edmund’s eyes, allowing Fanny to take his melancholy heart and become his wife, showing herself to be a true child of fortune despite her awful childhood.

In Emma, the link is even more explicit. In the last part of Frank Churchill’s long letter to Mrs. Weston at the end of Chapter 50, Frank Churchill connects the two elements of being a child of fortune in quick succession, saying that Emma had called him a child of fortune often, and saying that he is happier than he deserves by being with Jane Fairfax publicly and securely at last. It is intriguing to note that it is again the heroine (in this case Emma Woodhouse) who calls the character a child of fortune, and in this case it is explicitly connected with being happier than one deserves.

It is also noteworthy to note, though, that George Knightly, who is significantly older than Emma, is himself a bit puzzled or dissatisfied by the reference to ‘child of good fortune’ even though he certainly recognizes that Jane made him happier than he deserved [2]. It would suggest that his disparaging references to child of fortune suggest that the term did not have universal acceptance, but rather suggests some sort of romanticism that Mr. Knightly was not privy to. Let us remember this link between being a child of fortune and being happier than one deserves, as it will reappear soon.

In Jane Austen’s last (mostly) completed novel, Persuasion, we see one more example of a child of fortune, this one being Captain Frederick Wentworth. Of him it is said in Chapter 4 that he was always lucky, having no fortune but being lucky in his profession. Sure enough, after Anne is persuaded out of her engagement with him, he is lucky in his profession, gaining 20,000 pounds from his share of prize winnings. And, after he wins Anne’s heart (which he rather always had), and she wins his, at the end of chapter 23 has has to “brook himself being happier than he deserved.” That is, after all, the fate of those who are children of fortune.

Here again we see some parallels with the account in Emma. Here it is not the heroine, specifically, but the narrator, presumably in sympathy with the heroine (who is portrayed in a very positive way throughout), who makes the comment of the luck of Captain Wentworth. And, as was the case with Frank Churchill, it is the man himself who considers himself more fortunate than he deserves. And he is right, because he has the heart of a beautiful young lady and the expectation of a lifelong happy marriage. Are any of us so worthy?

Admittedly, three characters out of seven completed Jane Austen novels is a rather slender thread to draw concerning Jane Austen’s conception of characters being children of fortune. However, all three of the characters are vital characters. One is a rival of the heroine, another an apparent rival of the hero, and the third is the hero himself. We are not talking about minor characters being referred to here, but characters at the core of each story.

In addition to the centrality of the “children of fortune” to the story is the similarity between the concept of being children of fortune and being luckier than you deserve, especially with that luck referring to love. Mary Crawford would have been luckier than she deserved to end up with the upright Edmund, but she missed her chance and Fanny would not miss hers. Frank Churchill, a young man who while engaged to one proper young woman openly flirted with another young woman in front of his secret fiance, was way happier than he deserved to wind up with the first young woman and maintain the friendship of the second. And Frederick Wentworth almost got himself entangled with Louisa Musgrove, managed to escape and then got the demure and lovely Anne Eliott. Well played, Captain Wentworth.

Let us add one other way in which the three characters are children of fortune. Mary Crawford, the daughter of a naval family, almost attached herself to a very wealthy family and to the man who could have been its heir. Frank Churchill was the son of the relatively poor Mr. Weston and ended up being the heir to a great fortune, that of the childless Churchills, his uncle and aunt. And Captain Wentworth came from a family with no fortune and ended up a respected and wealthy captain and married a baronet’s daughter. Being a child of fortune, in the eyes of Jane Austen, appears to refer to both love as well as wealth. Let us not forget that Jane Austen was not only the author of romantic novels, but she was also a sharp and keen-eyed observer of matters of wealth and social class as well. It is quite possible she meant fortune both for material/social as well as for romantic reasons, as it would add a layer of depth to the thread she draws for these particular characters.

[1] Jane Austen, Mansfield Park, Ch. 45, paragraph 3, sentence 1.

[2] Jane Austen, Emma, Ch. 51, paragraphs 29 & 31.

You Can See The Early Signs Of Daylight Fading

“You can see the early signs of daylight fading; we’ll leave just before it’s gone,” closes the melancholy chorus of the song “Daylight Fading,” from that most melancholy of roots rock bands, Counting Crows, off of their dark but beautiful album “Recovering The Satellites.” I sang this song to myself as I had the chance to watch a beautiful Thai sunset without the light pollution in the way, but only because the power went out for about three hours here during the heart of the evening, starting during my late afternoon class and not finishing until well after dinner.

A life is privileged if it never once has to think about logistics. The less one has to worry about gathering sufficient resources to survival, the more pleasant and enjoyable one’s life is, the less unpleasant choices and dilemmas one faces, and the less stress and strain one has to suffer along the course of one’s life. It is scarcity that is a great curse of human existence, and those who have to wonder where the resources are going to come from not only to fulfill their own goals and ambitions but also even live a decent and tolerable existence, or at times even eke out a difficult one face difficult lives.

I speak as someone whose mind is not naturally inclined to think about resources. I do not have the nature to hoard up and collect resources, unlike some who excel in that sort of grasping behavior. By nature I am a strategic person, planning and silently and quietly working to attain my plans with a minimum of fuss but a maximum of explanation and justification and rationalization. Nonetheless, the course of my life has often forced me to deal with unpleasant logistical questions, to the extent that I see a certain value in a logistical strategy given the uncertainties of the present state of our world.

It is strange how my mind turns when I am forced at leisure to reflect upon my surroundings and my the state of my own personal world. At any rate, my thoughts turn to logistics when infrastructure starts showing signs of breaking down. When there is no power or water, when prices start to increase or supplies start to dwindle, or when transportation networks seem to falter, my thoughts turn to the ramifications of such problems on the life of people whose existence is fairly marginal. The fewer resources one has, the greater one is prey to volatility in the conditions of the world. The greater one’s resources, the smoother one’s ride throughout our tempest-filled lives. The possession of pleasant and tranquil lives is not necessarily a sign of moral virtue, just as the lack of resources is not necessarily a sign of vice; life is far too complicated for such simplistic reasoning. Nonetheless, ceteris paribus [1], I’d prefer to have more resources myself, as would most people.

Those who know me well are well aware of the fact that I am not someone who is prone to be all that interested in hoarding resources, or to be particularly greedy either. Nonetheless, my life has led me to understand that life is particularly dangerous right now because our crumbling infrastructure makes our societies a lot less robust than they should be. And this is not just a material matter, though the failing transportation, communications, and logistical infrastructure of our world’s societies is certainly problematic. Even worse than all of these, though, is the fact that our social infrastructure is collapsing through atomization as well as the decline of fellow-feeling between family and other networks. A decline in social cohesion means less of a social network to draw upon since the ability of government to provide a social net seems to be deeply in jeopardy.

Even though I am not a particularly selfish person myself, I wonder how I am going to acquire the resources I need, whether those resources be in terms of money, or affection, or respect, in order to live a tolerable life. And I not only wonder that for myself, but I also wonder it for others. Every Friday night, the students who are about to graduate from Legacy ask for things like a Legacy sponsor, or for help from God in their own plans, for matters such as scholarships for universities or opportunities for themselves. We all have logistics on our minds; resources are scarce, social networks are frayed, people are more interested in hoarding than sharing, and we are all in the same boat together.

It concerns me above all that we are in the same boat together but aren’t acting in a coordinated fashion. Without love, and not just love that we claim in our hearts but love that we show in our actions, we are in serious danger. We can see the early signs of daylight fading; if we are wise, we know that hard times are already here, and do not appear to be leaving anytime soon. Why then are we not wise, and seeking to build up the cooperation we need with others in order to find a more worthwhile and meaningful life, rather than cutting ourselves off from any sort of mutual encouragement and support?

[1] Meaning “all other things being equal,” a common latin phrase used by economists.

That Which Is Not Forbidden Is Permitted

There are at least four approaches to law. In the legal tradition of the United States, Great Britain, and similar countries, that which is not forbidden by law is permitted. In other legal traditions, like that of Germany (at least sterotypically), that which is not permitted is forbidden. In Italy, as the joke goes, that which is forbidden is especially permitted, and in Russia that which is permitted is especially forbidden.

What are the practical implications of these sorts of attitude toward the law? For those cultures that are used to great freedom except for express prohibitions on behavior, there is often a great deal of pro-freedom sentiment within the culture itself, and an expectation of a legal order that is not overly burdensome. When this expectation is not met, there can be serious problems, because those used to the freedom to live within boundaries are micromanaged, there are going to be problems, whether open or private.

From my own general behavior, I’m clearly someone for whom everything that is not forbidden is permitted. I remember fondly a competition I won at an engineering competition as an undergrad student in civil engineering where the project was to make a tower out of index cards that could hold the most plates for the least cost, with various supplies like bubble gum and the cards and paper clips with certain costs. The towers, in addition, had a minimum height of two towers. My group came up with the idea to use scissors to cut the cards to make a cross brace for extra support. When we asked the person in charge about it, he said nothing, and it was not mentioned in the rules. We went ahead and did it, and won the competition because no one thought outside of the instructions. In short, we won because of our mindset toward rules and laws, and were rewarded for doing so.

We would expect those for whom everything is forbidden except that which is permitted to have the mindset of those teams in competition to us, which is to do nothing that is outside of the basic rules. To be afraid of going outside of instructions inhibits one’s creativity, which one would expect to have serious and negative consequences. Nonetheless, we would also expect those societies that want a docile and obedient approach to prefer this sort of citizen because they are much easier to be controlled than those who are always trying to think creatively. There are always balancing issues; the sort of society we prefer influences the sort of approach toward making and enforcing laws and rules, starting from young ages.

We would expect, additionally, that those who have the approach that that which is forbidden is especially permitted (by society, if not by law) would be corrupt and have a great deal of disrespect for the rule of law. This is the sort of situation we find in the Italy of Burlesconi, whose own life indicates a high degree of interest in exploiting power for personal and political corruption. When a culture grows to have disrespect for the legal order, one can expect consequences in their lack of honorable behavior in general. Our attitude toward law eventually shows itself in our behavior toward each other. A disrespect for a moral order has consequences–a lack of loyalty in relationships, a generalized acceptance of cheating to get ahead in any way possible, and other corrupt behaviors. This is obviously a mindset we wish to avoid if we are wise.

The fourth approach to law is no better than the last two. When that which is permitted is especially forbidden, there is no safety from arbitrary hostility from the authorities. The history of Russia (and those nations Russia has dominated) is full of paranoid authorities hiring spies from among the ordinary people to ferret out even the slightest hint of freedom-loving as being conspiratorial behavior, to be punished by death or exile in dreary Siberia. That sort of approach would make anyone extremely wary about government anywhere they went. Sadly, such behavior provokes rebellion, since if one is under suspicion one might as well try to rid one’s self of the threat by taking out the dictator responsible. If you’re in for the penny you may as well be in for the whole pound.

It is clear that given my own very biased perspective, the first approach is by far the best. On the one hand, prohibiting behavior in such a culture is a difficult process, requiring iteration and consistent work, but the right kind of principles can make such an task easier, dealing with behavior as it comes up under rather definite and fair hermeneutical principles. The benefits are clear–a preservation of respect for a legal order along with a respect for the creativity and freedom of one’s citizenry, providing small off-limits and large amounts of free range to explore. That sounds quite appealing to me, personally, and no doubt to many other of my even more freedom-inclined friends and acquaintances.

For those of us who are biblically inclined, there is the natural question of which of these approaches matches the biblical approach. Fortunately, such a task is extremely easy to uncover, as the Bible is very obvious about which of these four legal worldviews it endorses. Fortunately for me, it happens to endorse the first worldview toward the law, that those things which are not forbidden are permitted. In the interests of brevity, let us look at two short but obvious examples.

The first reference to biblical restrictions confirms the first legal worldview is the biblical one. Let us look quickly at Genesis 3:1-3: “Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.”

We see from the beginning that the serpent, the adversary of mankind, seeks to show God as a freedom-hating tyrant, and show himself to be the apparent friend of human liberty from burdensome restrictions. Of course, God had permitted mankind to eat from every tree of the garden except one, and so naturally Satan tempts mankind to eat of that one tree. Mankind always seems to fall for the same tricks, seeking to free ourselves from minor godly restrictions only to be enslaved by addictions and death. Why not rather submit to a few minor restrictions and preserve our lives and health and well-being? Why don’t we ever act sensibly?

Let us look briefly at one more example. Leviticus 18 is one of the most clear examples of the first legal worldview. Without going into too much detail (I trust you all may read the chapter yourself), the chapter prohibits a lengthy set of family relations (everything closer than cousins, including step-siblings), and other related sexual sins. But it does so in a way that clearly shows that those relationships that are not prohibited are permitted because it spells out exactly what is prohibited. The same is true in Leviticus 11 in the food laws. There are general principles along with many specific examples. Those which are not prohibited are then permitted. It’s not that complicated.

The question that remains for us is what the implications of God’s preference of the first approach are. If God was simply interested in Calvinistic automatons, He would not have created free will or used a legal approach that presupposed free will on the part of humans, rewarding them for creativity, and providing a maximal benefit. Since God provides resistible grace along with a legal approach that allows freedom outside of clearly defined boundaries, He therefore clearly desires mankind to be free but self-disciplined. And since He gives us this respect, even as we have proven ourselves unworthy of it, we therefore ought to give each other this respect in our own political and cultural systems. So let it be in earth as it is in heaven.