Category: Uncategorized

What happens when you discover you cannot make Jesus’ words work?

What happens?

What happens when one discovers they are sold out to utility in such a way and to such an extent that if, or when one comes to that place of this isn’t working for me in the way I once thought or hoped and are now left facing a matter most unpleasant? Perhaps, and at that time to them, the most unpleasant of all ever faced?

That apostle named Paul spoke of such a condition, such a coming to as a real circumstance of possibility And we might even here, and for the purposes of this consideration, ask whether such matters were “real” to him as he wrote of them, that is of some experience; neither fabricated out of thin air, nor the result of some form of automatic writing.

What would be meant by that is as matter of communication. Did Paul sit at desk with paper and pen (so to speak) and suddenly writing appeared on page of matters with which he had no experience? As though God moved his hand robotically over the course of several epistles while Paul remained in some unknowing and/or oblivious trance-like state? Maybe even like a monkey at a typewriter able to compose a sonnet? It sounds silly, of course, when phrased that way.

But the question is real, especially as regarding the scripture(s). I am persuaded we often do not know how much of superstitious thinking infects us, how much we are given to certain views that are perceived a certain way, but cannot bear examination. And it is not uncommon at all to find a some or many who view inspiration as something other than what it is.

And there are at least a few of us, who, and if examined, imagine the scriptures penned thus of God. One may even hear such things as this is the whole of God’s word…from start to finish…as though every word were written by God Himself in some form of that “automatic writing” that must never be examined, or can never be examined without greatest peril, and of which the least would probably be wearing the assigned label of heretic. Or escort to a stake. Or some fiery end ministered of God, and yes, if necessary with a little help from pious men to light the match. I have little doubt that in some circles the scriptures are very much held as “The Magic Words”. As in, no man can touch the magic words and live. Maybe that’s why some don’t see them…or want to?

A god of superstition terrifies them greatly.

But I will, by grace believed, speak of the more terrifying God. Or the God of no utility. Even the God who is not able to be used as means to an end…but is all beginning and end in, and of, Himself.

It is interesting (to say the very least in its regard) that it would be Paul himself who helps us out a bit here. Yes, God purposed Paul to be a help, and I hope you find him so. And if one has no perception of Paul’s esteem of the scriptures it would be less than moot (and of no utility) for me to try and persuade any of his esteem of them.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (Paul wrote)

To say “highly esteemed” would probably fall short, but why would or should…any believe me? Nevertheless…

Yes, nevertheless, do we accept such writings attributed to Paul as “scripture” in no lesser sense than, let’s say…Isaiah? Or any of the other books “in the Bible”? And indeed, for some, or in regards to that other “some writings” there are even comments made in the “newer” writings that may lend themselves, or tend toward that automatic writing point of view. That once the prophets were given things too puzzling to their own understandings:

Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

These matters are undeniable. And, as said, they can tend to some form or view of matters in a certain way that tend toward a leaning. “God is moving their hand” in such a way (and I do not doubt it is always God moving a hand) that what they wrote was by them without a depth of knowledge confirmed yet to them.

Were they inspired? Yes. Were they puzzled…well, also yes. At least to the extent that they were provoked to search out and be informed “this is not for you…yet…but through you for ministry to others”.

Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you…

And yes, no one should monkey with the scriptures. God forbid any speaking or writing here be taken as such. But Paul helps us with our view…even as one himself in most enmity to any or all superstition and any especially about our God.

Regarding the scriptures the men writing are inspired, and that which they write is no less inspired. So, does it not behoove us, if believing the scripture(s) true in every or any sense, to seek some understanding of them? For what do we do now (with Paul such a help) where in his writings (do you accept as scripture?) he comes to such place as writing this:

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 

Now we have here (is this scripture?) a man saying/writing:

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

A man rendering opinion with such distinction he not only wants to make clear, but does make clear…”This is me writing and not the Lord speaking” (And yes…it’s in the Bible)

Now, what do we do with “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” while lifting a Bible with some attitude toward it…that is not born out in support of such attitude? Why, brother, there are “words” in there clearly stating they are not the Lord’s own words…but testified to (by an apostle…do you believe?) as his own, and not the Lord’s.

What then is there, what happens…when…we look into this and seek to find (are they scripture?) their benefit as described (by this same apostle) as:

profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

What is there in that “there”? Might it not be precisely for the tearing down of such attitude that lends to what is commonly called “Bible thumping”? Yes, indeed, Paul knew these weren’t/aren’t the magic words of themselves, but that as true and truth of matters their “utility” was for the changing of ourselves and not as some force we might use as against another. Even over another. And may God help me for the many times I have sought to bring men to the bar of, and by, my own accusing. It is enough to believe (and come to some understanding) of rest in Christ’s word…”and the scriptures cannot be broken”

Might we, if able to see, how that Paul…rather than make use of (availing for his own utility) his calling as an apostle and with what authority is there present to not only know, but be extremely careful about distinction between himself and the Lord…that he dare not prescribe his own opinion as commandment or law, or ascribe it to the Lord? Being so meticulously careful about such, having learned and been taught (by experience in the Lord) even perhaps not forgetting the easily assumed disposition of “lording over” of which each and every man must be disabused. Yes, Paul found a “me” (himself) secured “there is a crown laid up” in a very profound maintenance of the Lord’s identity alone…being over all. No confusion left as to “who’s who” and “what’s what” in the reality of Christ.

Christ alone remains the only worthy to “open the book” and that also to anyone He cares to. May we all meet Him on the road to Emmaus. And if, or when we may even be tempted toward any “throwing of it (the book)” at a them, only shows we have yet need and must first have it opened to ourselves. Indeed Paul himself wrote (“with such wisdom as God gave him” testified to by Peter) that in his relaying of matters in which he was wholly convinced (yes, even as an “apostle”) saying no more than “and I believe I too have the spirit of God”.

Today we might think or say “Paul…is that you saying ‘you believe’ you too have the spirit of God?” “Man, but you are a star in our universe! We all agree ain’t been many (if at all) like you…deep, true to death, rich in wisdom and understanding, labors and sufferings, vision and clarity!” C’mon man…we have hung a whole lot on you…as being one of God’s ‘great generals’ in this our christian army”. C’mon, ain’t nobody we know like you…or sure got ‘more of the spirit of God’…than you!” “Man, doncha know you wrote most of the “new testament!”.

“And I believe I too have the spirit of God”?!!! Man…where’s that coming from?

It might behoove us to know.

Strange place. Strange stuff. Strange way we learn. There ain’t nothin’ we got that we haven’t received. Ain’t nothin’ that originates in us as men that is true. (And we would be just as proud were we to believe lies solely originate with us.) Anything that we may have is given; and that so particularly is reduced to the very matter of knowing or knowledge. “All knowing” may be a defective attribution when used of God in any comparative sense; as though a man knows some things but God knows all. It is perhaps then better understood as present and active, that any knowing at all, is only in God. Who Himself is the “all” of it.

But here we see the weakness of our language, and I especially of my own to even use a word such as “it.” For some knowing…or even knowledge that is in part may suffer being referred to as it, but the utter deficiency of useful implication in referring to all “the knowing” as present and active without limit as an it, here quite plainly displays all poverty of use. And it is not difficult then to understand how one prior exclaimed “Who is equal to such a task?”

Omniscience is not a useless word, it’s just that the God of all creation and quite present to every bit of it, knows precisely of our understanding when we use or consider it, and also knows all the whys of our usage of it. It only becomes a useless word when we believe it is a definition of God (even though true) that can be handled to forming some outline of Him. As though God Himself must be conformed, or pressed to occupation within a word of our construction.

Does this seem a silly matter? Consider this then. If I were to be talking to you about a friend or a person you had not met, of whom you had no knowledge, if I were to be speaking of him to make him better known to your understanding there could be a number of avenues taken. Factually I could say he is 6 foot 2 inches, weighs 205 lbs, has brown hair and eyes, born August 12, 1962. I might say “he is handsome” or she is …whatever. I could give all the facts I know, or any and all characterizations of personality, integrity (or lack thereof), status…etc. And these matters could run the gamut from the more objective (Born Aug 12) to the subjective in the extreme (handsome).

But, when we speak of God, we are first speaking of the “objective” of all, although whatever experience we may have of Him is allowed (for such time ordained) subjective in our interpretations…but, far more importantly…He is present (and the One truly present) to our (and any) conversation. All is done in His presence…even if to some (as has been made in accusation) He appears as absent…the peculiar derision cast at the believer for having an “invisible” (read: nonexistent) friend.

The implications of God’s being toward us who believe are very great. Exceeding all that might even be found comparative in the word “great” by all means. Endless. Boundless, and eternal. And here, in saying implications of God’s being I am not at all speaking of the assumption, hope, nor speculation that God exists…but of God’s being Himself. Not even the assertion that “He is”.

Just as you and I might speak of our “being” as the sum of all we know of ourselves to whatever extent we believe we know…we cannot but allow that anything at all we believe we know of God is totally reliant upon His disclosure. But here is where the all that is the all of difference lay between us. We, at best, only know ourselves in part, if indeed we do know anything of ourselves. But even what we may say we “know of ourselves” to us required informing otherwise how could we know it? And although this may appear again as mere playing with words there would require some knowledge (understanding, insight, apprehension) of what “knowing” actually means when it is said to know a thing.

Yes, the implications are great. And it matters not much (if at all, actually) whether we speak to one another or only hold court within ourselves. If we are truly convinced (as we might repeat as “a” believer) that “everything is open and laid bare before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do” we might begin to discover how many machinations, manipulations of so called knowledge and understanding we handle in a place we believe privy only to ourselves to some end of securing ourselves or for ourselves. Yes…God sees how I try to frame my words to Him in such a way as to “get what I ask for”. Or in whatever manner of my doing or speaking I might arrange things believed under my control to either present, or represent myself, in a certain way. Here the absurdity of all my attempting becomes all too plain to me as to be beyond laughable. Here my understanding of even what I thought I thought absurdity “means”… folds like a house of cards.

What then? How am I to understand? What…am I to understand? (And only God knows whether I can speak for man as a man and whether this is at all applicable to you)

That this entrust-ment of the gospel wherein any truth of God is found alone through its guarantor, Jesus the Christ, is made to a man (like myself…or not at all like me) to the end that he might learn it. What it means. And that any instruction therein found or impetus to share it is actually far less (as at first sight understood) for the purpose of others…but so that man himself might come to understand the things he says, or preaches, or teaches with any confidence. It also behooves a man (like me) to say that God’s economy is perfect, and that any work in the gospel as for the gospel (which remains Christ’s work alone) is always fruitful. Whether vessel through, ground watered from, or any word of its power, it is always at work…toward all things and everywhere.

In the world and its ways, it is entirely different. A man is deemed proficient enough to now pass on or teach by his achievements. He is considered some sort of expert and given a teaching chair. Whereas what we are given to learn, yes, even in instruction toward any “going” has far more to do with the revealing of our own inadequacy to all things, even our ineptitude…but for God. No doubt this is a hard word for some. That starting as it were, with some illusions of sufficiency we are then brought to knowledge only of our great dependence and necessity. And it would be remiss to let go without saying as in the above “but for God”…that therein lay all the difference and all the reality that becomes the truth of the disciple’s life. But for God is not only enough, it becomes to the disciple…all there is. If God be for us…

It remains interesting (to say the least) that toward the end of his life and ministry Paul would say what he has said in writing to his “son” Timothy. Yes, he kept the faith, yes, he saw a crown laid up (not only for himself) but that his only claim as testimony of his own self was as chiefest of sinners. Surely he had learned much along the path laid out for him. Perfectly prepared for him. And (or is it But?) he came to see his dire necessity for another to rescue, to save him from all he knew himself to be. He is even so bold as to say the “why” of his calling and choosing, not due to any expertise or greater grasp, not due to any better obedience rendered, or ability to see deeper or higher…..not due to any thing at all but God’s purpose to display both to and through such a one…His exceeding patience.

So many, even “like myself” tend to see, may even want or claim some desire to see (or claim) Paul as a worthy example in some following after. It would be silly if so, if extolling him as a pattern…to not come to the same understanding as Paul did, who not only remarked this of himself…but in such boldness also said “it is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation”.

Are you faithful? Am I? Are we?

Together.

In this?

These things, this writing cast off in my not knowing (in my deepest sense of knowing) are set adrift very much like messages in a bottle. This is in part, as I consider what motive is extant for their being, due to the considerations that have occupied and led me to the conviction I am, myself, just a message in a bottle. What then can I produce that is not “of me” or like me? Like you, I am no less consigned to some expression of being. As no less a neutrino, and as likewise, I am only set for the finding out. As I am in a container…even so any messages so sent out must be opened up (as I must be) to see anything of what is going on inside. Actions, behaviors, attitudes…even words come from a place disclosing who, and what we are. Here there really is no such thing as fiction.

As even, in some sense, the greatest fabricator of stories, the most skilled novelist or storyteller of yarns spun from what appears greatest fantasy…knows he is writing an autobiography. Unless he is too dense to yet see it. Even so called historians, or writers of non fiction show themselves by what history or subject they deem worthy of note. Yes…even scientific journalists. We all are always giving ourselves away. It has become for me, inescapable. I am, to whatever extent I am, surrendered to it. It is less saying “I do not want to hide”…than…”I simply can’t”. Whether shown (or believed to be) liar or as one approaching some truth, I cannot escape. And, yes, I do believe the same of you. Don all black clothing or the most screamingly vivid day glowing tie dyes…it matters not. Plaster a vehicle with bumper stickers or keep it showroom clean…it matters not. What may appear as the most trivial of choices to us are always some expression of who, how, and what we are.

And it may well be only the most destitute, whose choices have either been robbed (or surrendered to some extent) and are often the most easily identified, are as being the truest in congruence to their estate. Our only salient question may well be “Am I able to live by what I give off or give ‘out’ ?”

Can I live with my own poverty?

If I seek attention…how much can I bear? If I seek to be hidden, how much ignoring…can I bear? Many is the celebrity that laments being unable to now “be” without prying eyes everywhere. Yet, what did one think would happen in seeking to be a somebody? Oh! how we wish we could control consequence(s)! Make them conform in circumstance to the pleasures we seek in circumstance. “Yes, all eyes on me while on the red carpet, but please, when I want to go out and just get a taco…really?” No wonder the world becomes too small for some. They have made it so for themselves.

“What does it profit a man…?” someone said.

I have made no secret of being strongly moved by the persuasion of that someone. So much so He has persuaded me He is even as He said…once dead…but now alive. And surely…He was once dead to me. In truth, my recollections of that time of his being dead to me was fraught with far less troubles in any consciousness of consequence(s). What I mean is that…yes, there were many troubles but few, no actually none, that were by me attributable to not caring at all about His deadness to me. I was quite settled into being blind to Him, stumbling and bumbling through what I considered the most normal and natural of estates. I was no better nor worse off than any other except for what I might eke out by a native cleverness to try to control consequence. Yes, I really thought I could control for them, and by such thinking even control them.

But now, being convinced persuaded of His life, the reality of consequence(s) has not diminished…in many ways been heightened to a point where it is made too clear I surely do not, nor ever have had any control over them. Indeed, I must be told what they are.

How different are you and I?

Reaching for the brass ring, even desiring the brass ring by consideration of its glitter (in whatever form it takes) as something desirable, already puts a man in the circumstance of consequence. He will either press himself forward to overcome fear of falling and failure, or not. If he draws back, self loathing ensues. He may come to see (or will if enlightened to it) he is not what he wants to be.

If he reaches and falls, small comfort may be “at least I tried” in his broken estate. He, too, will lament his form. But if he reaches, stretches himself beyond all he thought his own limits…and succeeds…he may not know he has come to the most precarious place of all. For if one is at all keen to seeing by a grace not their own, here may be established in a man “I am and have all I want or need to be”.

“What does it profit a man…” someone said.

There are fellowships of the fearful, and of, and with, some form of cynicism. Likewise the broken who behold the reaching with a “better knowledge” of what can happen, also observe with a form of cynicism. But the successful to themselves? They become to themselves alone sufficient.

The world’s powerful achievers in leadership (of any ilk) may occasionally meet together, even be forced by circumstance to come together briefly, but each holds himself securely apart from the others. The pinnacle of success has isolated them. From whence they survey all others…as “other”. There may even be the grossest and transparent feigning of some camaraderie for a brief moment of conjured smiles and handshakes; a play performed for the underlings of fear and brokenness that “their leaders” are of a salubrious unity. But their deepest cynicism steeped in that cup of self sufficiency, and the accompanying conviction that all can be fooled but themselves, is most hardened of all.

“What does it profit a man…” someone said.

I have been often reminded, and am again of the trenchancy of this statement attributed to Nancy Astor:

The penalty of success is to be bored by people who used to snub you.

Is that cynical? Or does it more align with our motives for success as we call it…to “be” more than what or how we are presently esteemed (of ourselves and others) to grasp something to get us “over”.

I do not doubt, like any who may read, I have known fear’s force toward withdrawal, I have known some brokenness of utter failure and even some of the flushes of what a success feels like. That heady feeling of having made it in, or through some endeavor or circumstance; or shown some superiority to, or in it. How very rare is any knowing that all that is just a prelude to a fall.

What does it profit a man…?

To understand one’s self as on that continuum of brass ring chasing where contentment may be even lauded but is illusory, requires some form of intervention. For even that success, of what might be called achieving contentment, is fraught with no less danger to the soul than becoming king of the whole of the world. There is an unremitting lurking of “I have done it!” waiting to show itself in all or any motions of our own toward success, or what we would call it, see it as, or define it as to ourselves. It is a, or the worm in our goldenest of apples. The fall waiting in every success of grasping, and even desire for, that brass ring.

Call it consequence if you must yet see it as subsequent, call it an inclusion in that golden apple (as though worm and apple might or do exist apart) or know it is that worm itself giving the apple its only claim to glowing golden in your (our) sight. Without that “I have done it!” as inclusion, as part and parcel; not as thing separate or consequence to it, but the very thing itself inspiring all the glowing and thence reaching; there can be no exit from this merry go round, this treadmill, this hamster wheel of both self condemnation and pride securely stamped upon all the coin of this realm. They are the sides that make up the whole of it.

What does it profit a man…?

Again, it would be a lie of omission to not admit I am just as subject to shiny things as any other. Indeed in some ways I know myself as worse off as it has been shown to me. I like to pretend my shiny things are of a finer or more exquisitely subtle nature, and for, and of, a better refined palate. Yes, I hold court with myself and within myself and acquit myself every time of every fault I merely attribute to a slight miscalculation. I will “do better” next time…because now I know better, and… I am better.

Who then is showing me as the most craven liar of all?

Who is daring to humiliate me?

A me who is already king of all his own world?

Can I drag him to my court without He dragging me to His?

Oopsie.

This chewing through psyches, this finding of inclusions, this finding of what was described (in last section) as a great big hole through one’s center as resident there, but not identifiable as self and is therefore “other” to it, unknown to it, as a hole filled with all mystery to a self (is it hole full? is it hole empty?) is it even really there? Is it a fabrication where all blame can be dumped…where all ignorance for matters attributable to miscalculation (and therefore self justification) can be justified for dumping “It came out of my not knowing“. Out of that hole!

Well, as handy as it may be, it really is far more troubling than useful. It really does not submit well to utility, no not at all. Not when one stands at its edge…and not at some remove for blindly throwing over ones shoulder as into it. One facing it.

Not looking does not mean a thing is not there. As there is consequence in observation, there is consequence in refusing to.

And beyond what one might tend to describe as a silly or clever trope for a movie scene by which a man might stand accused as having a bumper sticker mentality for its presentation, or bubblegum understanding, or deeply steeped psychobabble-licious propensity; (all of which I am not unrightly to stand accused) one may find others have visited. How far from the edge each has or may come is quite incalculable, for the edge loses all definition once faced. It has no edge one finds. It is all and only of capacity to swallow. Consumer of all. It eats all in any beholding. It eats all refusing such beholding The refusing believing they establish their own edges in their own discrete-ness. Their own different-ness established of themselves as to themselves. The borders of their kingdom they believe secure.

“He has also set eternity in the hearts of men“…is written.

Is it written in you?

Another man answered this question posed above:

Can I drag him to my court without He dragging me to His?

in this way

“If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you”

Whether he himself, Nietzsche, discovered he was staring at a hole full, or a hole empty and was answered by emptiness or fullness is as moot now as ever was in the face of that abyss of all mystery. He only confessed to ascribing it some also “conscious looking” into a man looking into it.

Yes, the mysterious abyss has a face. And it is not mine.

For I am the liar.

And I am made to know difference. Of who is who and what is what. For I am no different than any other…but that one.

The Placer of eternity in the heart has put a face to that abyss of all mystery.

Look.

At all cost(s)…look.

See who reigns over even all a man would call his darkest fears.

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me…

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. 

There is no other response to the one responsible for all.

Turning is a gift.

Dying in turning, no less.

A gift from the same voice that says repent and believe the gospel.

The same voice that says to the dead

Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

There is an interesting operation (or function if you will) that takes place in observation. We could even call it consequence if we are careful about the use of that word in some point of understanding that this consequence is unavoidable. For generally speaking we tend to think of consequence as a thing that follows after, linked surely to an action or activity, but in some later following. Rarely do we recognize its immediacy is already in the action, even as bound to it. For us it (consequence) holds seeming possibilities, but this, in immediacy spoken of, is unavoidable and sure.

And observation is cause of all we experience as effect.

And this point now should be approached (as I might hope) in as much surrender to absurdity as can be summoned to the limits of the understanding of that word. Actually I should say “word and words” for surrender is a word no smaller than absurdity.

It is too late for us.

We have already surrendered to the notion of being conscious. Surrendered to a thing we can neither define (except by words made up in consciousness, or so we believe) to describe such thing we each believe we have according to that word, but cannot in any other way lay hands on. The defining in defining is all we have of it. We may chase after understanding it, but we must admit it is only by definition it is barely known to one another, and such definition as we trust as coming from a consciousness that is true, or real. In this way it is too late for us; we have already accepted without either any (or much) understanding of it, a thing we believe real. Untouchable, but fully malleable; unseeable but totally convinced can be made plain, in full necessity for any pleasure to be known, but also the source of the greatest of sufferings which men have been able to inflict upon one another. It has created poetry and the rack alike.

I will not belabor the folly of the man who, either by inward conviction or outward speaking says “there is no God”. He is plainly holding or saying he is neither of, nor from, consciousness. And if he does this with, or in his consciousness, (does he not? mustn’t he?) he is stating he possesses in sole or greater measure than that from which he has issued. He is to himself, that breed apart. He is his own creator. That’s fine for that notion can be handled, too. And is being handled. No man can boost his own consciousness, only betray it. That he not only has it, but by some strange working of his own self in it, he can determine where it either is, or is not. And he may project his own consciousness back to a thing he might even call the “Big Bang” (if he is so inclined) and with that consciousness…”look around” and be convinced he sees…none present. Yet with “his own”. That to him…has come as from no where. And, not unlike truth, he is self convinced “I’ll know it when I see it”.

But I have already belabored these some issues in my self indulgence through “Betrayers of Consciousness” (parts 1-53). A sort of verbal rack itself.

But God forbid, in all or any speaking of consciousness, these workings of mind(s) to which every man is subject in his own there be a neglect of including that influence one to another. No matter how much any might like to think of themselves as either their own man with their own mind, “No Man Is An Island” in all its implications holds true. We are as subject to “other minds/consciousness’s” as to what we call “our own”. We are subject…to consciousness.

Don’t think of a pink elephant.

Now (which for me is about 15 minutes after writing the above about the elephant, but for you seems immediate) one could say “this man is trying to be tricky with his use of example” or even perhaps…”well, ain’t that a decent example of how we influence each other’s minds even with a thing called ‘don’t do’…that causes a doing?”. And there could be a million other responses, no doubt. But this is what is meant (at least what I think I meant) by immediacy of consequence through observation. And I would be committing a lie of omission were I not to say (even believing I see it as so) I am no less caught in it as any. For that 15 minutes was spent considering “Am I just being clever?” “Am I just trying to take advantage of someone who may be reading?” or, more likely “Am I…just a smart ass cleverly trying to make a point?”

You may be observing a “me” as you read with some consequence (O! but this guy is so tedious and full of himself!) But, I was no less and also forced to observe and consider myself…and that I made (even in that silly example) consequence…for myself. All doing (who would exempt thinking or such as may be described as “working with or in consciousness”) holds consequence. How much more…communication? For we are always in expression. Which surely does not exclude all behaviors that can be observed…even how one changes a tire. “That man is not too bright using that severely rusted jack”.

“Oh! but I was not trying to communicate anything to anyone by the way I change a tire” becomes moot.

“Oh, but I was not seeking to communicate anything by wearing this Rolex or carrying this Gucci bag” no less so.

We are all caught in it.

And even neutrinos cannot escape the expression (communication) of their being.

Being has consequence.

No less, consciousness. We may try to adjust them or for them (consequences), by something called knowledge and/or foresight (knowledge is power!) seek to control them (consequences), even hold some hope for their influence toward others for a thence from others (I tend to myself prefer amens to “he’s bat shit crazy”) so that in all consequence(s) may be made subject to us. But, they never are.

Even the very act of, disposition toward, desire for controlling consequence(s)…has consequence in it already.

Being has consequence.

And it’s far too late for any of us to not be.

“What makes a man like Ringo, Doc?”

The hole. The hole right through the center of him is what makes him as he is. (is a hole a not thing, or is it “other”…only appearing…as a “not there”?)

That’s some hole, then…for the seemingly empty to make a man what he is.

Or as another man put it “That’s some catch that Catch -22”

Why yes, indeed it is. May you find that the very perfection of its all encompassing entrapment is so perfect, and too perfect indeed, than to do other than speak of its very purposeful and conscious imposition perfectly accomplished. Upon man’s consciousness.

You, and I, and all things…are being handled.

Even by the not thing.

That huge hole filled with everything that appears “not there”.

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

If you’ve gotten this far I’ve had my mind changed. I’d be delighted with “he’s bat shit crazy”.

It came from that huge hole. That not only has power to make a man what he is, but to change him according to a will.

Try to fill it with all your own preferences…and see what happens. I surely have.

Do the experiment.

Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens.

Oops, you and I already have.

It’s too late for a do over.

Now what?

This unyielding need we have, often to the point of lust, for the knowing of a thing or things for ourselves surely stretches gaping mouthed into any matters concerning truth. Indeed there is nothing we would say we know in our (assumed) fullest understanding of that word know that does not presume such has been made ours…to our own self. And no less, when we say we know a thing this is strictly bound to our conviction we know it in some truth…the truth of it and the truth about it. And though we may readily admit we don’t know all about a thing we are yet convinced that what we do know…we know.

Yes, I can say I know mathematics. I know how to add, subtract, divide, multiply. But then a brilliant mathematician comes and presents some equation or formula and asks me to solve it. I do not really know if he has written this upside down or sideways, and I am at more than a loss for I am not even sure I recognize it as mathematics.

And very much depending upon the disposition of the advanced mathematician I could then be held up to ridicule “This fellow doesn’t know math at all as he says” or amongst all the other things that might be said he might say something very strange “Don’t worry or fret, I too started with only the tools of addition subtraction, et al. but I can teach you.”

Now either I must compromise what I have said, amend it, frame it better to its limit “I know some math”, or if obstinate (now my disposition comes into play) and persist “But I do know math!”, I insist. And find, by such obstinacy, I must be answered a very specific way. A harder way. For I am refusing to submit to one with a mastery plainly shown.

But here’s the thing in this very poor example. I know enough only to get into trouble. What I believe I know of numbers and functions (and I really do believe I know) does not allow me to receive his sigmas, deltas, curlycues and what all or be seen as math at all. There are no Greek letters in math! Math is only ones and twos and fractions and such. My knowing (as perceived as such) has actually limited my knowing.

As I said previously in not being able to even recognize whether his equation was upside down, sideways or such allows (even coaxes) me to take that space, place, or position…”this fellow is only making all this up; fabricated only to the end of shaming me with ignorance.” And in some sense not hard to understand (I trust it is not) it is my disposition toward imposing my motives (which I do not yet recognize as my own) upon him as fraud has now called into question…and very much so, his integrity.

And if so…and now…is any able to see how absolutely unbelievable it would be for me (or any) to have any expectation, let alone consideration that “Don’t worry or fret…I will teach you” might be heard?

Yet here I will tell you, and you alone, even if no other ever reads this, this has been all my way with the Lord, and all His answer. I have gotten into the deepest trouble (knowing only enough to do so) to either doubt or wonder at His word, and in so doubting His word, cast aspersions upon His integrity. Or wonder about it. Yes, this is me. And He knows this of me. He knows how I have “weighed him”.

Any matter of preference here is more than moot. It would be a lie for me to say “I would prefer I think of myself as one who hears and obeys” or “I would prefer to be seen as one who follows with some loyalty and devotion and obedience”. My preference has now become the lie even though I know very well I am still in possession of some. And if one were to say “O! but this is too hard a way” or “no one could ever like this” I couldn’t agree more. But is truth made subject to our liking, for if it is…only a thing able to be made…subject to…

Do you see?

Only God can settle this matter to any man. But how? How? How can a man be convinced (and as need be over and over…even as every man need be…over and over) of any truth to which he has no chord nor string in, nor of himself, to resonate? The man himself would have to be made into a different species of person.

Yes, this would be necessity.

But how?

Could he do it for himself? Make himself into what he is not?

Or, would it all be, of necessity, only a thing he must have done for him…as to be in him?

In your inner court, yes…that place right there (how visible it is!) from which all issues, even the temerity to speak…do you hear yourself? And if you have been given the temerity to speak from there…do these words frame themselves upon your lips and tongue as one who desires “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”? In both thinking to yourself and of yourself within yourself and/or even now with such boldness as to publish to others (by lip and tongue) as speaking true of you?

Or would you say “I love lies”?

See, here’s the thing we both know. One is a pleasurable way to think of one’s self, and if one can even be convinced they can convince others this is so…it appears as pleasure, too.

You see…we both know this.

And this, this “what we know” is all and enough to only get us into trouble.

That we love pleasure…not truth. And that we make truth in service to it.

And what is “truth” we make up?

There’s a word for it.

What could be made able to admit the truth of that?

It would take a different species of person.

Something that would have to be made able to come out of such inescapable self condemning of itself as loving lies.

Lies.

Yeah, that’s the word. Yes, that’s it.

If any man would have any interest in the truth as even caring enough to say it and not deny it, or hold some inner conviction of its reality regardless of any conviction he might hold as to his relationship to it, he must leave the place of analogy. For to speak, think, or consider beyond its merest superficiality in handling as a word, or even a deeper concept, and well beyond methodologies, he must come to some place of the handling of essence(s). For unless truth is seen as both rock bottom of matters and transcendent in all matters he has not yet left that place of analogy.

It is in that sense a big word. And larger yet in concept. And eventually, if the man would continue, found to be the only matter of all matters that is or ever could be of any matter. The scientist, the physicist, the logician, and yes, even the philosopher is only handling truth by his methodology in some hope of finding (as the scientist and/or physicist) the truth of things, and of forces, the logician of orderly thought(s), and so on. And again, yes, even the philosopher understands he handles it at some remove; in some quest for a thing that operates toward himself as a persuasion, even some imbued vanity that the thing he might find, or bring close enough to eventually touch would then be in full summation of all the aforementioned; of things, of forces, of thought and thoughts, and even consciousness. All are operating as observers, conceding some remove from the matter(s) under their investigations and therefore are consigned to that place of laboring in, by, and through analogy. All, in truth, is by method of comparison(s).

And if this is too fine a point, all labor with some likelihood of hope truth can be known.

Is this sleight of hand that hope is now introduced? Again a word large in scope, larger still in concept…but can truth be applied to it in any form of congruency? Mustn’t they (if truth be known) run together in some sense? How close can they be? Can one (if one is inclined) say “I seek truth, or the truth with no hope of its finding?” That is folly on its face. And if they do, or even must run together are they in birth of one another? “I seek the truth by hope in its finding” or seemingly conversely “I hope to know the truth and/or know it if I find it if indeed it can be found”?

And no question here I must fall to any or all accusation of being merely philosophical or worse. A man seeking to use words cleverly (words themselves being made analogous to thoughts) to the end of some persuasion. And if I were to say of the accusation “I do not care” rightly the astute might say “well there must be some care if seeking to make that clear, otherwise why is it being said?” No, I quite readily admit we are all in some persuasion of one another in a sea of consciousness we share and that even what may appear the most subtle eddy’s and currents are all at work. In that sense we are all in effect. And one must care enough about something to even think…or further say “I do not care”.

Likewise, and no less, is this matter of truth. It is for each of us the yes or no matter, the yes or no question. (That’s a very bold and broad statement, isn’t it?) But who would deny? Could the man, or a man say “There is no such thing as truth” (yes it’s a word, yes it’s a concept)…but in reality.. “It doesn’t exist as either word or concept would lead one to think”. Well, if he states that, and states that as truth…?

O! but we are so bound!

We cannot deny…truth. For even if seeking to deny it, we establish it as a thing deniable.

By matters that have persuaded me a wiser man wrote “For we can do nothing against the truth but for it”. His testimony to its finding (or being found out by it) was by a person…not a word in the sense we commonly think as analogously used to convey men’s thoughts, or even some philosophical considerations of it as a concept, but as from a person made willing to show the truth that He is himself the truth.

Now, THAT is bold. So bold in presentation that yes or no is all and only what can apply here. The penetration of it is perfect amongst all men, that no matter their questions about truth, they are already convinced they are of it, themselves. What do I mean? I mean that each man (am I lying here?) holds this persuasion (again no matter how lofty nor foundational a thing we may make of truth) and is totally convinced he will know it (truth) when he hears it, know it (truth) when he finds it, know it (truth) when he sees it. That there is some string or chord already within himself to resonate, and that will resonate to truth. And that, in short, is a lie.

Am I telling the truth?

or

Am I lying?

A few sections back was discussed the matter of a declaration: “We hold these truths to be self evident…” and regardless of where one stands in relation to that particular document or its enumeration of the truth(s) held to be as self evident; the notion of the self evidency [sic] of truth is introduced. That truth is supported by a self that recognizes it, cannot deny it, and is (at least to all selves like it) plain. We discussed that this could not but leave a certain population out as included as having, or being, such a self. They had to be for this declaration to not be self incriminating of the writers as liars to themselves, and now worse, broadcasters of such a lie by such its declaration and upon which they took a stand. And not only so. No, far worse.

For the declaration was issued that such, as such, come from a Creator whose imprimatur of this self evidency [sic] of these truths is also undeniable. Either slaves are not men, cannot possibly be men included in “all men are created equal” and no less entitled to all so called rights enumerated, or the men in practice, regardless of their statement(s), are shown liars. And if they (even if not holding slaves themselves) but allow that others might (even such signators in whose company they have also signed and therefore show themselves as of that company) then they wittingly or unwittingly (it matters not) have shown themselves in practice not only compromisers [sic] of truth, but by practice declare (demonstrate, show) truth is compromise-able. Or, at the very least, their own declared truth(s) are such.

But God forbid any think I can say much about “other men”. For, in doing so, I only admit “I am of their company”. Worse if I think I have some “other” innate standing for speaking only to what must be entirely unlike me.

And what do we call men willing to compromise truth…whether it be assigned to themselves as “their own”…or even by most lofty statement made as coming down from a Creator as over all?

What then is truth if it is always (is it always?) subject to being compromised?

Either “not truth” (for it is neither rock bottom nor transcendent for compromise has made it its subject)

or

Truth always shows men as the liars they are.

And I am a liar. Even one who, in all practice (look and see how much I write and declare!) is full of compromise.

My self is the greatest liar I know.

Am I telling the truth?

To say (even we as believers) have never encountered unbreakable word to such measure as is being revealed in us as unbreakable, seems too bold a statement. Nevertheless, is it not so? To say we are now in discovery of the true, even that true God who speaks and is speaking Himself in us, and to us, and into us to make us also true (as He is) through Christ, is not something for which we are provided prior reference. There is nothing of us gleaned from our time “in the world” upon which we might say this is not all absolutely new to us.

We may think we know what honesty looks like, (or love, or life, or integrity, devotion, loyalty, or a thousand other things the world looks after as good things) but when God speaks with unbreakable word and of unbreakable word we are either given grace to see or must lie. Either all analogy gives way as it must, or we are yet living only in shadow of type and are ourselves only shadow men. God is patient.

Listen if you can and are made able. And if you (or we) hold the terrible truth of God with some trembling in your own commonness of dust as before the God of all creation…you (or we) may be able to hear. For all is new here…not like new. The faith of Abraham, commended by Christ and spoken of often to us through the scriptures was of this nature related by the writer of Hebrews:

“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going”

This is too terrible for any man to receive except by “a” grace given. For what man does not soon discover how deeply held is his disposition to appear as one knowing where he goes and what he does? Yet there is this great gulf of difference also soon learned (is a disciple made one able to pay attention?) that what has appeared once as man walking purposefully and knowingly is now revealed to him as all stumbling to a terrible end (even in himself) while the one settled by faith to stumbling through a place unknown to him, yet finds (and testifies of) one all along the way ready to rescue and pick him up.

I understand how this may sound mumbo jumbo. Both men are stumbling through, but one, yes, but one does not think he is. He is self convinced he knows all the hows and whys of what he does and is more than willing (no, greatly devoted) to making a show of how purposeful he is in his proceeding(s) with all knowledge of them. To himself he can…and will…show “he knows”. This man I know only too well. And I would think we all have had some experience with him, as being in him.

But the man of faith, this new creation for whom and to whom all things are being shown as new, has something of that unbreakable word in him of having to let go of all he once set his compass by. His only plea here is, and can be, for mercy. He has nothing to assure himself he is plowing straight, nothing (once so grand to himself) that he is remaining in bounds by looking back and gauging his own doing well; for he is where he has never been before. At best he can look (though it may seem back as in memory) and only see where God has appeared to him as help all along the way. He is losing sight of his doings…seeing only the merciful hand of God.

As need be read of Abraham. And though none (certainly myself) can bring any accusation against him, you will find he had much to learn about being preserved in his walk, about steps taken that were indeed ordered for him, but of which he could never boast of having done everything rightly.

And to put what may appear too fine a point to it…that which appears too weak, too ignoble, too easily dismissed as a poor place to set one’s hope for, or as weakest and most frivolous way of life and being…that is in plea of mercy…is being shown this man as a strong, and even strongest suit.

All that knows better than mercy would say “if you just did it right the first time…you wouldn’t need it” or “if you just knew what you were doing you wouldn’t need it or have to find yourself in plea of it”.

Just “be” better.

But.

There is no knowing of anything greater than God’s mercy, nor His delight in showing it.

Happy is the man who is robbed of his ability to think he may maneuver around it, try to be what doesn’t need it, or appear as more than he is as one exempt from its necessity to him.

For he gets to see how God delights in showing it in a place he has never been before.

And yet…he knows it as home.

As home for which he has held no prior reference.

Not like home.

Home.

All matters of law, and particularly the law as given of God through Moses, are of concern for the believer. And if one remains unconvinced of its pronounced weakness regarding any ability to improve upon the flesh or recover a man from a snare by which law shows its inadequacy, let him at least consider how much of questionable (if not self defeating) constructs may be born out of law. Lawyers, additional and always supplemental codicils, amendments, explanations, systems (and systems of enforcement) which are required in support.

If one were to say matters of liability are made plainly paramount by such, even so that what might appear the most casual relationship is now governed by them, and interposing into all relationship(s), would any be exaggerating? This may be subtle to some or many, God knows. But any relationship entered into upon presumed and necessary grounds for self vindication are more than shaky at the outset. What a man may think superficially as beneficial insurance and assurant [sic] of sound relationship actually becomes all that inhibits relationship, snares him, and prevents communion; all the while he is thinking that such is sound and true. The question remains as posed in form by that poet do “Good fences make good neighbors”?

The fence is itself external to (both) neighbors and cannot “work” except by agreement that this thing between them is of necessity to, and for, both their definition of themselves to one another, but, and no less, to the definition of themselves. Each are quite bounded. And on the face of it (as such superficiality was mentioned) it appears beneficial…for “my neighbor must know just how far he can go”.

But what do we find when applied to ourselves? A bristling, a resentment of boundary, even a will to kick against restriction and inhibition. But the law is good…some will say. Yes, indeed it is. But few will concede to what it produces in us despite all its seeming benefit. The will to go beyond it, to neither be inhibited nor restricted by it. And fewer understand (as pertaining to the law of God) to this end it was given…that our nature to be governed by it now shows a rebellion against it. The thing we most need because of our own rebelliousness is the very thing we find producing it to such measure that our lawlessness is now “right in our face”. The law given…not so we might know who God is, but who and what we are.

Paul understood. This thing upon which so many commended themselves as keepers…was actually, and by that stand as keepers, the very thing condemning. Man commending himself. Using a “good” (and holy thing) to engage in the basest (we shall call it sin) of endeavors of self exaltation. And Paul understood the conundrum presented to the mind. “is the “good” thing at fault?” How can this be? How can a good thing…bring about such evil…if it itself is not? Yet, it was made to us so.

For Paul understood also this “I was alive once apart from the law, but when the commandment came sin revived and I died”. Let us be settled to the how’s and why’s of this matter, for apart from this each and every will have some doubt of their need of savior, and if doubting that doubt His necessity…and if doubting that…are actually doubting His being. The law (a good and holy thing) produces in a thing of such base perversity, and that by such perversity produces sin. Yes, one would have to say: “that thing must be so out of order and perverse that even a good thing is made death to it.”

Consider a tumor. The very milk and honey once “taken in” for presumed healthy growth, now, and no less, feeds the tumor. It is not the milk and honey made evil by the tumor, but the tumor showing of its nature to consume to death. To take even a “good” thing and use it to perverse end. The law shows in and to man…what is not at all “like God”. But only to that which has been given the mind and sight of the spirit. And is made able to see its desperate estate. And only a man made sure of his own estate sees any need for salvation. Or a savior.

“Doc, are you sure that’s my X-ray?” One might ask in some trembling.

Thankfully, wonderfully, graciously, and mercifully our very physician does not come to steal hope from us in the revelation of our desperate condition. Nor are we shown this matter as a shame to us. The shame would be in denial, in the vain attempt to resist both His being and His necessity to us, and for us by seeking to make less of this.

But we must be clear about this matter, there can be no life apart from this settling of accounts. There is to be no confusion as to what a man or any man might do for himself in this estate. This is not a man able to seek elsewhere as though by legal appeal he might find another authority for reprieve, or to get him off the hook. There is no hope this judge’s ruling might be overturned by a greater authority, either…or by a change in regime. In any acknowledgement of the Lord as savior, there can be no confusion as to whom and what so desperately needs saving. He is the savior by His appointment as such, we are all [the] sinners under God’s righteous judgment.

But it is here a wonderful work is begun in revelation to us. That it appears too contradictory to some is of no consequence. That some, as Paul understood, might then say “well, if God is doer of all, and maker of me, even as a sinner…then how can he still find fault or standing for execution of His judgment… if in all, He is responsible?”

That reasoning seems sound on its surface.

But the flaw is quite deep. And only through the revelation of salvation is this flaw exposed, the man reconciled to truth, and in place of salvation. Even the most fundamental of all things for relationship are exposed, made plain to be understood, and thence set in right order for any spiritually rational thinking to proceed.

Paul jumped right to first matters, and most rightly so. Man is not God. Who is he to respond to God about what God does? For if one does concede God as maker of all (even the man himself in all things he is and knows of himself) and responsible in all for all things then, He owes no explanation. None can compel explanation from Him, and there is no authority greater…to leverage this from Him. God does as He wishes. So, any man who may say “God made me like this”…must be in all concession to God as over all and can find no place for standing of response…particularly if thinking God is compelled by his (the man’s) reasoning(s).

But there is this other matter. This matter of relationship…if there is to be one. For any relationship to proceed there is, and must be that clear delineation of who and what a thing is in relationship to another. Any, and every married man, knows this. My wife and I are indeed “one” in relationship (even particularly in marriage) yet she must remain to me who she is with me being who I am. I am not “her”. She is not me. And every married man knows what happens when this is ignored.

And so what appears paradox, but is actually necessary estate for relationship, that is a seeking toward a closer union is based upon “I am me” (who loves her) and she is the she I love. I don’t want my wife…to be me. Even if, and though…she is of me. And when assumptions are made presumptuously as to how I may deal with her in this…well, again, every married man knows what happens. The respect of her integrity, even her integrity itself (which is quite dear to me) is not to be abridged. Nor is there to be confusion as to whom is whom. I believe with some confidence I can say every man knows what happens when a man presumes to lord it over his spouse, as though he is her maker and has full control over how she should or must, respond in all.

So, if the man who concedes God is God and can do what He wishes…and even ‘make me like this’ speaks only from calculation, he shows he knows nothing of the relationship. For to resist, in any way that same God who shows His will to make saints of sinners…(and is conceded to be God over all) is there shown as rebellion…even to the man’s own reasoning(s). He will either have to falsely say “I am no sinner” or “God’s limit to his making of man has been found in making me the me as I am.” Simpler put…”I am the essential man”. I am “the” true man about which God can neither do more, nor wills to do more. Both on their face are lies. Especially the second glares, for it is man setting God to His limit. Showing he does not know the God for whom all is possible. Children of a lesser god cannot help but show their paternity.

This really is not subtle reasoning. Nor a product of deep spiritual insight. We maintain that boundaries of identity must be established before there can be any relationship. To say “God is God” is neither vain nor unworthy, but it falls short of that informing of who and what God is in that relationship. And the first place we start from, and from which in truth we are prohibited from any other in Christ to start from, is indeed that “the Lord He is God”…but not apart from “and I am all that falls short of being God”.

One is faller short…one, all sufficient. But now, and in this establishment of “who is who”, relationship can be revealed, grown in, savored and enjoyed. For Christ did not come to shame us with sin, but to save us from it. And make us one with Himself.

And here is where that seeming paradox shines so brightly…that the glory of this relationship, fashioned in and of God for His own people, a peculiar treasure to Him and thence made so by God to perfection…will never confuse themselves…(as nearly as they are drawn, in as much unity as is revealed with their Savior), with Jesus the Christ.

Interesting how perfect communion, perfect relationship does not deny, confuse, nor abolish identity, but instead establishes and perfects it. Even to an understanding.

To be given this place whence adoration may flow from one to another, and so rightly so, is all and only joy, and completely devoid of disappointment.

Don’t you want somebody to love?

When you are touched of God to respond with that desire to touch, one begins to enter into the esteem of God for His only begotten. And there find, He loves you…no less.

It is enough.

And I am now man of understatement.

Seeing that man will always frame law to himself in a great bias for either self exaltation or to ameliorate its penalties, it has therefore no effect on the flesh. For it is the flesh that frames it thus. The law is good, and as the apostle said, holy. But something (or rather someone) must come to show the perversity of the flesh to weaken it, to make it subject to himself by many amendments, loopholes, work arounds and the like. The man who might proclaim how much he loves (the) law, how very lawful he is in his devotion to it either must be shown how little he regards it in all truth, and stand convicted before it and by it, or continue in his self delusion.

We easily see the first man’s preference for self when frankly confronted of his conduct in regard to the commandment to not eat. He did not say “Yes, I ate”. And of all the things we might speculate over as to what might have been available to say, we do know he said this, “The woman you gave me…”

Already there is a shifting of blame away from himself, a stance as apart from both the woman and the One who gave her to the man as to where the fault truly lay. And also, and no less, a distance set by self excuse…from the commandment.

But even in this I have no place to accuse nor judge Adam, for I am of myself no less guilty in this maneuver. “I would be a better man if all around me would just do right” is an attitude with which I am not unfamiliar. It is “everyone else” that make it so very hard…for me to “be good”! I “only lose my temper because“…or “circumstance has caused me…” and therefore create a world of sin in which I see myself as apart, or distinct to whatever measure I assign it, to the end of self exaltation by self justification. I judge creation to excuse myself. Even judge He who is source of it.

What a perverse created thing.

Yet there remains God’s purpose in all.

Jesus asked this very pointed question and, one would think, to some end of discovery for us in the “why”.

“Why do you behold the mote that is your brother’s eye but do not see the log in your own?”

And I have been persuaded it is only the asker of that question, who sees this in operation so very clearly, that is able in any way to help us understand.

“Yes, Lord, why do I?”

For it truly is neither the log nor the mote that are much at issue…but this predilection to not see what is “of myself” in preference to finding some fault in another. I am in the possession of a thing, even possessed by a self that is so deluded as to how things truly are that it not only cannot see, but refuses to acknowledge the same is, as is over it, as to what it would hold another as “under”.

And who can deliver…from self? Self interest, self aggrandizing, self motive, self justification as all and in all? Has any come to “do” not…his own will?

Happy are you if you know His name. For He alone is your justification for being.

And it is not that you need no other.

There is no other.

We can, if we continue with a discussion of law’s weaknesses, easily see how this especially pertains to the laws of man. How many laws must follow to support, proscribe, further define, even limit by exception any declaration a man (or group of men) may make? Consider…”freedom of speech is absolute and inviolable…except in such cases that…”

Even rules follow (how many rules/laws follow!) the very methods acceptable in conduct for determining whether a law has been broken. Yes, we can easily see how loopholes are made, certain conducts are considered and made “more illegal” than others (hate speech) and the like. Man’s amending to such great length and frequencies the things he calls laws (which have some appearance of foundation and unbreakability) actually testify man doesn’t really believe much in law at all. At least as he would define it on his most commonly accepted level of understanding. “You can’t break a law…that’s why it is called a law” he most commonly thinks. But their malleability and ease of lending themselves to change or further need of support betray they are not as foundational to us as we oft, in pride, may declare.

“We are a nation of law(s)” it may be said by one, meaning only what we hold true and supportable today in law may indeed change by sun up tomorrow. Or through clever applications. How easily man’s foundations are exposed for what they are…caprice. And shifty.

We soon discover how all is in service to some notion of expediency. Even a sort of god, itself.

And since man is himself so clever at making his own laws “weak” through manipulations how much more those claimed given him by “a” god himself. Here understand I seek not to belittle the God as lawgiver but how, through such manipulations, man shows himself receiving as from a lesser god.

Here listen to Jesus if you can.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Or this:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

We look at the above in at least one of two (or more, God knows) ways. We either think Jesus is amending the law, sort of adding to it (would Jesus do that?) or He is stating most plainly that what is most commonly accepted as the tenet of the law, really isn’t at all the matter of the law…at all. Rather than changing or amending, He is elucidating, enlightening, as to true meaning and nature. Oh, but now who escapes?

Oh, yes, it’s easy (expedient) to the self of man to exalt himself as law keeper by thinking “I have never physically lain with another woman” or “I have never physically killed or murdered another” and thereby be self satisfied with his exquisite care and concern for things he believes delivered him of “his god”. But Jesus cuts to the heart of the matter (no, He is not amending the law(s) ) but making plain how far it has been missed…both in mind and heart. Not understood at all, not loved at all, not really ever accepted…at all.

But then, Jesus understands something the listeners do not…the law is spiritual and of spiritual nature…and these are sons of Adam to whom He speaks. Unable to hear or grasp or understand matters of spirit…unless one deliver to them the self same spirit of their author. There is no communication, no understanding apart from a key (not unlike a Rosetta stone) to translate to them what is totally lost upon them. On a New York street directions to Carnegie Hall may given perfectly, but if in Swahili by the speaker to a touring Wisconsin born farmer…as useless as no directions at all.

But even here that example is so far from the reality as to be laughable. For we presumed to understand, we assumed to ourselves such understanding(s) that by the very doing of such, made the law weak to us. “I just don’t penetrate Betty, though I think of her often” is enough to allow me to think myself a certain way. When in truth it is the very matter of “how we are devoted so to seeing ourselves in a certain light” that is the matter always at hand. And this “light” is not the light of the God who is God. And there is a lesser god always eager to abet us in this false light to its preserving to ourselves. We like the way it makes us feel. A “better” person. And surely not one so desperately wicked and hopelessly lost in and to sin…as to need a Savior…as this man Jesus preaches. No, “I love the law, I keep the law”…

“and just think of Betty…often.”

To many or some this may sound too coarse. But I trust there are few men who do not understand. In fact I imagine there are some even now addressed (if God purposes any to read) that would say…”too much already…this is so broad in experience by almost any man with any imagination and instincts (and who is red blooded, to boot) as to be silly…who can escape their own nature, or deny it is a very fundamental nature of man to want to mate with what he finds attractive. Even far too fundamental to be made subject to his own changing.”

You’re saying man has to be forgiven just for his being what he is.

Precisely.

But far more. For what comes along with that “being what he is”…is the presumption that he is what he really is not.

The judge of God’s work and word.

For he is no more than clay made animated to God’s end and purpose.

And all of mankind in Adam once mated itself to and with what it found attractive…instead of God.

And adulterers and adultresses, through Christ, are made new; to return to God their maker, who is their husband.

The first man Adam is of the earth and earthy, a living soul given to all distraction by shiny things.

The second man and last Adam is the man from heaven who is a life giving spirit and who is alive in all truth, to even Himself being, in His being, of all truth.

It is not a case of what if one is an adulterer but seeing one is, and has no justification.

Unless it be provided.

What have you…and what do you, fall for?

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.