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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nonetheless, there is one quality, aside from the simplicity of the message, that connects all of them together. For one, all of them are propagandistic. The whole meme, such as it is, combines either four or six different views of some given quality, one that is presumably created by someone who claims a particular identity or supports a particular perspective. There is often some sort of disconnected between the way society, friends, enemies, family, and we see ourselves, no matter what we are. It does not take a meme to judge that.

Likewise, there are often multiple different images for the same drawings. For example, the drawing I liked for libertarians was different than the one I originally saw, which showed a well-dressed and presumably well-spoken person face-palming after reading online idiocy. This is clearly a biased view of a Libertarian, but so is my own perspective of them. If there is one good thing about this meme, which will probably be fairly short-lived, it is the reminder to all of us that there is no neutrality in how our identities are seen.

This reminder is somewhat necessary. If I make one of these images for myself, or for something I support, it looks a lot difference than one that I make for my enemies. For example, there was an “occupier” version of this image that I was unable to find, probably because the image was deemed offensive by google, that showed “what an occupier really did” as defecating on a police car, and “what an occupier thinks he does” as being like Martin Luther King Jr. leading a peaceful protest on Washington DC. This rather incisive picture is nonetheless the picture of the Occupy Movement by its enemies. Clearly they themselves, if they were able to occupy a wifi hotspot, would paint a much more flattering picture of themselves. And that is the point. Our understanding of ourselves and others is inherently biased.

If this particular meme does one good thing, it reminds us of those facts. What we say about ourselves, and what we say about others (particularly those whom we dislike) tells a lot about the way we see the world. Neither our perceptions of ourselves nor of our enemies are inherently better or worse than what our friends or enemies see about ourselves. The facts themselves are in dispute, and often far more complicated than a simple image can convey. Furthermore, the groups of people included are themselves so diverse that they cannot easily be determined either, though it is easier to the extent that those groups are smaller and more homogeneous.

And it is the limitations of the form, and their highly biased nature, that probably influences both the popularity of the meme as well as the inevitable backlash against it. Some people, indeed, are no doubt offended by the very simplicity of the presentation and its ease of sharing. These people probably find fault in memes in general, especially those which are easily accessible to others. On the other hand, the obvious selectivity of the pictures need not be a barrier to its humor (provided we share the basic worldview of the original creator of the drawing) or to its being able to provide limited but still worthwhile insights. If a picture can say a thousand words, four or six pictures ought to be enough for a small essay, after all.

[1] http://gawker.com/5886003/where-did-that-what-people-think-i-do-meme-come-from-and-how-can-it-be-stopped

[2] http://mcheathem.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/historian-meme.jpg

[3] http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/431657_382847655063540_100000149274425_1742576_1537270511_n-1.jpg

[4] http://quotulatiousness.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/JoeyDeVilla_what-people-think-libertarians-do.jpg

So, therefore, when I awoke yesterday morning and this morning to hazy days, where the sun was discolored beneath the haze. I suspected, therefore, that fire was the cause of the haze as well as my own difficulty sleeping and breathing deeply. So, after church this afternoon, I decided to investigate, and found out that there had been quiet a bit of fires (along with an ‘extreme’ risk of forest fires in general all over Thailand) in the area of Chiang Mai and neighboring provinces like Tak and Chiang Rai [1].

If it’s one thing, it’s another. This past summer and fall, as readers of my blog are well aware, flooding was a major issue. Now the dryness of the dry season has made forest fires a particular danger. We can never seem to have the right amount of water–either it is too much or too little, never just right. It would be nice if one could have enough water to keep the forests from becoming tinderboxes but not too much water so that hillsides slide and riverbanks flood. I am not a child of luck, however, and it appears that our times do not offer such good fortune for many areas.

What makes the risk of forest fires worse are the habits of the Thai people regarding the careless use of fire. Some 90% of fires are started by human activity, such as rubbish fires and burning tires and the like (both of which are pretty common) here, as I can see within my own village. Deliberate arson is much rarer, but carelessness is dangerous enough, and at least a few hundred acres have burned so far (the haze would suggest far more than that, but news reports are skimpy). That’s not enough to write home about, but even if our winds are not fierce right now, the lack of rain expected for the next couple of months, at least, creates a high level of risk. We shall see how it goes, though.

[1] http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/243031-thailand-on-high-alert-for-forest-fires/

Tonight I gonna make it up to you.
Tonight I’m gonna make love to you.
Tonight you’re gonna know how much I missed you, baby.
Tonight I dedicate my heart to you.
Tonight I’m gonna be a part of you.
Tonight you’re gonna know how much I miss you,
And I miss you so. [1]

The point of this song is fairly obvious, and also very common in the love songs that we all listen to frequently if we play our ipods or cell phones or listen to the radio. The singer expects to sleep with his patient and longsuffering girlfriend in order to show how much he cares about her and how loyal he is to her, even though he is often far away touring around the world.

But what is missing from this song’s lyrics is every bit as important as what is sung. The lead singer is not apparently married to the girl he sings this sweet love song to. He apparently feels, as do many people these days, that sex is perfectly acceptable outside of marriage. He may even believe that it is acceptable outside of a relationship, if he enjoys the pleasure of “groupies,” the young women who seek the attention of famous entertainers, while he is on tour. Anyway, the singer enjoys the pleasure and thrill of sex, but feels no need to limit its enjoyment to marriage. In that, he feels no different from many people in this world today, and probably many of you.

The Bible’s Hostility To Immorality

Most of the people I am speaking to today are Lahu. The Lahu are famous around the world for two things. Lahus are famous for being hunters. Lahus, however, are infamous for being promiscuous and sexually immoral. I hope that is not true of any of you, but it is something that your people are known for. It is also, sadly, something that my people are known for as well. In many places I have visited around the world, such as West Africa, random strangers on the street would insult me for being sexually immoral because I was American, regardless of the fact that it was not and is not true of me. Hopefully the same may be said of you all.

The Bible is very hostile to sexual immorality. Let us turn to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and let us look at a set of sins that will keep someone out of the Kingdom of God, and will prevent someone from having eternal life. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 reads: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”

This is very blunt language. Who are fornicators? Those who have sex before marriage. Who are adulterers? Those who have sex with someone they are not married to. Who are drunkards? Those who drink too much alcohol (or, even more broadly), do drugs and so are not in control over their mind or body. Who are idolaters? Those who put anything ahead of God on their list of priorities. Who are revilers? Those who curse people in authority? Who are thieves? Those who take the property of others for themselves. Anyone who lives in these sins, and does not repent, will not enter God’s kingdom. All of these behaviors are sins against God that we struggle against as human beings and which are all around us.

We must first understand that the language of First Corinthians is no harsher than the language of Leviticus to describe God’s hostility against those who revel in immorality. It is a common but mistaken belief that the God of the Old Testament was harsh and mean but that the God of the New Testament is all love and mercy and no judgment. This is incorrect. The mercy of God extends only to those sinners who repent and change their ways, not to those who persist in rebellion against God’s righteous laws.

The Song of Solomon

Nevertheless, there is another error that is commonly held that God is hostile to pleasure or sexuality, or that sexuality is itself sinful. This error is so deeply entrenched that there are many people who cannot read the book of Song of Solomon without immediately jumping to its symbolic meaning about God and Israel or Jesus Christ and the Church of God and completely ignoring the Song of Solomon’s very passionate physical meaning. This is a false dilemma, because in reality we do not have to choose between sexual immorality, and a hostility to any kind of sexuality at all. We can choose a godly sexuality within the boundaries of marriage, which is what the Bible consistently endorses.

Nowhere is this endorsement more obvious than the book of Song of Solomon, in which I would like to spend the rest of my time today. Here in the Book of Song of Solomon I would like to talk about what advice about human sexuality this book gives us that remains applicable to Christians. I understand, and I want you all to understand, that this book has a deeper meaning as well that many people often talk about, but I am more interested in its practical use for us today, so that we can understand the difference between the view of love songs and the biblical view about godly sexuality.

In fact, the passionate nature of godly sexuality in the Song of Solomon is so great that Jewish rabbis thought it was improper for people to read the book before the age of 25, especially while unmarried, because of the great fear of those rabbis that people would misunderstand this book. As it is, the Song of Solomon has long been a book of the Bible I paid close attention to, even though it is one that is very obscure to most Christians. I would like to do some small part in changing that unfamiliarity for you all, if you are now unfamiliar with this book. We need to understand that on the one hand God is an enemy of sexual immorality, the promiscuity and fornication that are so rampant in this and many other societies. But at the same time, it is important for us to understand that God created sexuality, and that it is something good within the proper boundaries.

The first point I would like to make about the view of godly physical love from the Song of Solomon is found in Song of Solomon 2:6-7. Here in these two verses we see both sides of godly sexuality. Song of Solomon 2:6-7 reads: “His left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me. I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or by the does of the field, do not stir up nor awaken love until it pleases.” Here we have a curious statement that is repeated in Song of Solomon 3:5 and 8:4—we are not to awaken or stir up love until it pleases.

What does this mean? Let us find the answer in Song of Solomon 5:1. Song of Solomon 5:1 shows us what relationship existed between the Shulammite woman and her beloved. It reads: “I have come to my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk wine with my milk.” The man and woman who say these passionate words to each other are husband and wife. They are, in fact, newlyweds. When the woman says not to stir up nor awaken love until it pleases, she is telling us very wise advice that we are not to play around with sexuality until we have made a covenantal bond of marriage with our spouse, and that they alone are to enjoy godly sexuality with us. Sex is not something to be experimented with, or to be played around with; rather it is to be enjoyed within the boundaries of a godly marriage.

The second point I would like to make is that the Song of Solomon is genuinely very passionate on the part of both the husband and the wife. Let us look at one example about what the husband and wife in this song say about each other. These are not the only examples of such passionate language, but they should be enough to give the general flavor. Song of Solomon 4:2-5 gives a passionate picture of the way the beloved views his wife. Song of Solomon 4:2-5 reads: “Your teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep which have come up from the washing, every one of which bears twins, and none is barren among them. Your lips are like a strand of scarlet, and your mouth is lovely. Your temples behind your veil are like a piece of pomegranate. Your neck is like the tower of David, built for an armory, on which hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, which feed among the lilies.” What is the beloved saying here? He is talking about how his bride has such excellent and white teeth, such sexy red lips, such a pretty face, such a beautiful neck, and such beautiful breasts. He says all of this beautifully and poetically, and the godly sensuality of what he says needs to be respected. This is not only talking about Israel or the Church of God, but it is also talking about a real and beautiful flesh and blood woman.

What the bride says of her bridegroom is just as passionate. Let us give one example, in Song of Solomon 8:1-3. Song of Solomon 8:1-3 is extremely passionate in its love, saying: “Oh, that you were like my brother, who nursed at my mother’s breasts. If I should find you outside, I would kiss you; I would not be despised. I would lead you and bring you into the house of my mother, she who used to instruct me. I would cause you to drink of spiced wine, of the juice of my pomegranate. His left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me.” This passage is clearly describing a wife playfully teasing her husband about how affectionate she is in public, because it was not considered proper in many ancient societies for a woman to kiss a man, even her husband, in public. In the next two verses the wife very passionately teases her husband about the fine pomegranate wine of her breasts. Anyone who reads the Song of Solomon with any kind of awareness of ancient love poetry is aware of how full of godly sexuality this poem is [2]. Let us not be deceived—the Bible has nothing against sex, or against the passionate exploration of sex between a husband and wife. Far too many people have been deceived about this.

Let us not be deceived either, though, about the Bible’s hostility toward sexual immorality, even in the Song of Solomon. Song of Solomon 8:8-10 gives the commitment of both men and women to keeping godly sexuality within the bounds of marriage. As the bride’s brothers say about their sister in Song of Solomon 8:8-9: “We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day when she is spoken for? If she is a wall, we will build upon her a battlement of silver; and if she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar.” To which the bride replies in Song of Solomon 8:10, “I am a wall, and my breasts like towers; then I became in his eyes as one who found peace.”

What is this passage saying? The bride and her brothers are speaking in the language of sexual morality, comparing people to towers and walls and doors. A wall is someone who is moral, and who keeps himself or herself pure before marriage. This is extremely rare these days. But such a person will be crowned with battlements of silver for their righteous behavior. On the other hand, if someone is a door, if they are loose or promiscuous, then they will be boarded up and locked inside away from potential lovers for their own protection because of their inability to keep away from temptation. The bride comments both on her sensuality—she has breasts like towers—and also on her virtue, by being a wall. Therefore the Song of Solomon frankly, and even graphically, describes the sexual bliss of a married couple while also strongly warning against fornication and sexual immorality.

Conclusion

Today we have discussed the romantic perspective of the Song of Solomon. The viewpoint of the Bible is far different than our own cultures’ views concerning sexuality. While promiscuity and sexual immorality are rampant in our cultures, the Bible itself strongly condemns sexual immorality without condemning the godly sexuality that takes place between a husband and a wife in marriage. Let us therefore all hope to use our God-given sexuality in godly ways, and to seek an honorable marriage bed for ourselves, rather than to find judgment from God as a result of our immorality and fornication.

[1] Read more: http://artists.letssingit.com/westlife-lyrics-tonight-gkld52d#ixzz1m52oQ2vN

[2] http://www.keithhunt.com/Sex11.html