I had an interesting ad-hoc conversation tonight. Since my mind has been in Wittgenstein-land, when I started a rant about my position on Modern law-oriented ethics, things got ontological. Let me start here: verbs are funny things. They really don’t have any material existence; I cannot really point to “walking” in matter. Yet we speak of it, and affix unto it a label as if it were material. That’s not really my point though, rather just a preface, just in case I’m wrong with what I’m about to say:

Love, if viewed as an object, lives and survives in a “space” in our lives. Hopefully deeply-infused in our motions, thoughts and motives. Love can live in 2 realms: the ideal, and the real (the possible and the actual). Love is really love when I actually enact it, perhaps by easing the work-load of another, instead of reducing my workload. But Love in the ideal-realm is one independent of action. Perhaps this is what my wife is speaking of when she asks me, “Do you love me?” (Side-note: yes hon, I do!)

There’s a down-side to all this non-pragmatic love: that love can be had, felt, said.. but not enacted or lived in re. In fact, it seems to be much worse than that! Love seems to have a dualist parallel, and it’s not hate.. to use Christian language it’s Sin. You see, Sin is the exact opposite of Love in content, but exactly the same in internal form. That is to say, Sin also has an ideal & real existence, and Sin can entirely take the place where Love is to be. It’s a dandy replacer, focusing all our concerns on self instead of others, on an economy of gain instead of an abundance of mutuality.

To say it again: Love covers Sin, and Sin removes Love. They exist in the same “space” in our lives. Notice, though (thanks to their ideal & real forms) that love and sin can appear to coexist, and often they do! The possibility exists where we may have an ideal Love in our lives which isn’t sufficiently expressed, but instead living out specific sinful acts. This middle-stat won’t last long; Sin will take it’s foothold and twist what little Love we have remaining. ‘Tis a nasty brute! But Ideal Love can push Sin out- such is the life of the Good.

Note: Specific to Christianity, Love’s opposite is often described as fear. Fear is a specific subset of Sin, having misjudged Christ’s condemnation over our Sin.. that is to say, if we fear this encroachment of sin in our lives, if we fear the only hope of freedom from sin, then what hope or power do we have over sin? It will have it’s sway, and we will be left alone in our Sins.. (hint: don’t do this!)

..is hard to do?

It seems most of my life is on a project of curiosity — how has humanity through the ages viewed the transcendent realms: the location of hope, of curiosity, of mystery and potential and of infinite fear? Religions deal with this, philosophy like Existentialism deals with this. So as I view these various perspectives and values, I find that Christian beliefs are surprisingly sturdy, and they get pretty-well along with many ideas. In this dialogue, I end up finding a new sense of depth and goodness to my faith.

But that’s intellectual appreciation. It doesn’t really do much for the soul. I can appreciate an idea, but act entirely outside it’s parameters. And that’s where churches get curious. Sunday mornings are filled with squishy songs, and large groups of people wearing their heart on their sleeves, embracing the aesthetics of language and sound (albeit in the form of socially-normative prescribed behaviors). I think a lot, and I’m thinking about what’s occurring instead of embracing and embodying like other people.

I remember asking myself, around age 20, “Do I wanna be like (committed, expressive) person “A” over there?” It scared me. I didn’t want to be. I didn’t want to be, but I was still attracted to what it could be like. Being convinced, being self-transcendent, being energetic, being hopeful. And for a time, I was, or at least thought I was, but it didn’t do/accomplish much. Finding myself no further in life, I guess I’ve regressed into myself again. Given alternatives, I’m thrilled with the person and work of Christ.. I’m thrilled to be with my wife in the face of being alone. Life together is great, and so much more dynamic.

I think what I’m saying is that reminders and motivators for love certainly vary by time, place and person. But what seems screwy to me is the general church assumption that worship-music helps people fall in love with Jesus more. That seems a little weird, since love itself is the kind of thing which multiples itself. Oh sure, eucharist is all about remembering, sermons are all about remembering, songs are about remembering, and Peter said his whole duty was to remind the church of what she forgets.. but there seems to me that sometimes words aren’t enough. Sometimes I need to talk with people. Sometimes I do like my heart on my sleeve, but oftentimes it’s been beat down into hiding with cliche. Authentic love is amazingly powerful, and that’s why I’m thrilled to be married. And that’s what I’m looking for among church-members. Does such love cross intellectual borders? Yes, but not when we’re all reveling in our own understandings. I’ll love you and I’ll listen to your stories about your kids, but I need you to listen and hear me ramble about Sartre & Wittgenstein.. because ya just did.

Is there a difference between me “following God/Jesus in faith” vs. me “following God/Jesus in reason”? The latter is what people have come to term “making God into your own image.” The alternative is a life of openness (or dependence, as Schleiermacher wrote, though I would say the Scriptures & creeds point to this idea!). But one cannot live in this world without decision-making amongst responsibilities, and for the young & without responsibilities (note: not necessarily “irresponsible”, just a more open & potential life) things get confusing and tough. God is The God of History, not just of our personal histories, but of world history. He can work with anything we throw at Him, but the question is always the opposite: can we handle what we throw at ourselves & can we handle what He would throw back at us?!

So to return to the question: most of us likely follow God passively in our own reason: we do as we think we are to do. The opposite option is to follow God actively in our faith: asking daily (dependently, openly) what am I to do/act/think/allow/follow through with today. The 2 middle roads are to follow actively in our reason: which is to make a mockery of Christianity, it is the least mature position. Or we are to follow passively in our faith: when something comes along, we take it. I’m in this last camp, I’ve came from the worst camp, and I’m yet to move forward toward active openness.

#1:
-How much theology you know (content)
-How much Christian-ese you know (form/language)
=Trouble: The form/content split: You can say things without knowing the consequence/significance. If there is content behind the Christianese, that’s better. But it still doesn’t solve the outside-perspective problem in #5.

#2:
-How much you love people?
-How much you love knowledge?
=Trouble: The world can do these things too. True, there is debate on the depth of “what does the world know” & “how good can the world be”.. see #4)

#3:
-How social you are (not necessarily how much you love them)
-How elitist (my ppl/snobs) you are.
=Trouble: Christians are our own ppl/community (but it’s not just an insider thing)

#4:
-How sinful this world/ppl/a person/thing is.
-How wonderfully God-made this world/ppl/person/my wife is(are).
=Trouble: Both are true. Can’t be a romantic without being a skeptic.

Conclusions:

Too much rationality (note: this is different than ‘thinking’ or ‘logical’, nevermind the context) is as much a problem as too much romanticism.
This, I think is lately a HUGE problem. Within American, Big-Money (‘protected’) Christianity, there is no ‘bad’. There is no falling out. There is no pain to be had or seen. That which is “horrible” is hardly so.

Too much ‘ethics’ leads to elitism.
Explanation: Too much ‘ethics’ can lead to a redefining of what is actual “sin”. Is sin a simple statement of “that which the world does, but not what Christians do”, or is sin “that which any of the world does, and if Christians do it, they sin.” or shall we exit that short-term debate & claim that all men are sinners & sin everyday of their lives. Is the issue even “acts of sin” at all?

This week I’ve been doing some thinking and reading on affection and cognition.. good phenomenology stuff. In doing so, I’ve been focusing on 2 terms: expression and it’s complement, impression. Of course these terms were used in the art world 50 to 100 years ago, but I’m focusing on their value and place in the soul.

Being a quieter creature, I can have trouble with expression. Too much of it from others around me, and I’m going crazy. So impression should be easy for me then, right? To some degree, yes. But when I speak of impression, I refer to direct inputs one has in their life. So, taking an audit this morning, I asked, “Generically, what inputs do I have/allow in my life?” My first response: “very few.”

1. Listening to others: few speak other than my pastor & some in community group
2. Reading: I rarely take the time (though I’ve been trying and starting to enjoy this week)
3. Learning: This directly takes place in the trenches at work, and that is a painful version.

If Impression is a form of humility, what then is its role against (in dialectic fashion with) self? Does it mean ignorance of self? At least not placing enough time and energy on self. And what of the self’s reaction to this? Does it whine? Revolt? Fuss? Complain, “What about me?” “Well, What about you? Self, do you so need the attention of the world? You already have it of the Father & the death and life of his Son!” This is what/who I need Impression from.

Yet I’m unwilling to bow to this. This is myself demanding to push away impression, yet crying out. What is this?! Needing and receiving love is a need for impression: the expression of another unto my self. Why then have I focused on my need for the impression of love, yet pushed away the one capable & desiring to express his love to me – to fill my impressing need?

My day devalues love & the source of it, yet my self cries for it. I need and am unwilling to admit it, to label it, to accept that my need, with all that I describe it as, is precisely love.

So how to convince self? Look & find that needy part of me? Have I just not heard enough? No habit built-in of hearing.. of hearing his love? Indeed all I’m left to do is cry, “Open my ears!” I see well enough, but my ears are closed off. You’ve spoken through signs to this deaf man – let me hear the cries of others & of your love! Turn my will to accept & admit my need of love.

---

Is this management not of affection but of communication: impression & expression? It’s hard to manage theory.. So most have sold to hearing with-out hearing: daily impression of reading, fighting to hear and hear. Is this that mechanical and formal of a relationship? What other means of communication are there? Surely reading the rational form of creation, as well as the aesthetic in it and that reflection of deity within man and his role here. Such are more subjective re-readings from the original objective source.. and subjectivity is where truth, love and faith are to reside to have any value for one’s soul.

It’s no surprise that this world takes some up-keep. Few things ‘just work’, and that certainly goes for life and the daily hassles therein, be it traffic to simple forgetfulness to emotion distress that stops us from anything remotely responsible or enjoyable.

This up-keep that is needed is a healthy aggression often labeled pro-activity or responsibility among other titles. But such things are hardly what we as full human beings want or expect out of life. Don’t get me wrong, life certainly includes continual self-giving.. but to never receive back (whether in perceived or actual form from God and/or others) is too much to bear.

Rather, in the face of all this that is required of us, we often seek that which is to us, peace. Here is where either responsibility or addictions take root. For what is peace? Has it more similarity to non-motion, inactivity or unmovedness than to activity? If peace is simply the ‘hassle-free life’, then non-motion it is. But what of relational peace? Will unmovedness suffice? Clearly not: a united mind, affection and action bring peace in that realm. Perhaps peace is to be a stoic or eastern hassle-is-as-no-hassle, betraying any true emotion in me..

I find all ‘answers’ entirely weak in light of the goodness found in renewal. Would I rather sit in unmoved fashion bitter and sulking at the cruel world around? Sure it may feel right and true for a while, but not for a lifetime. Rather, what I find in my days is so much hope and energy in the morning, and fear of the day’s work taking it all away before I can get to my true loves in life: thinking, writing, music, friends and my soon-to-be wife. These good things are part of what God has built me for.. they are good things, requiring of me. They require motion. And in good Aristotelian fashion, this motion towards them must overcome the daily stresses. This is peace.

But I’m not sure how that overcoming goes down. I know there’s something scary about human resiliency. We just won’t give up. We can, but quite often we don’t. Simple pride is enough for some, if you’ve normalized to a culture of it. But pride seems to be an all or nothing thing: if I have too much, it will drive me. If I instead take on humility, then I find myself less worn-thin, and having more energy. But If I try for the middle-lands, assuming and controlling over some small domain, then I’m worn out, seeking to regain control over something else, or nothing at all: numbness & apathy.

Peace is not the numbness from all of the external forces beating on me. Peace is not the apathy which comes either. Peace is overcoming this numbness and apathy of self-defined & controlled life of knowing-what-I-can-handle and instead being reminded and re-associated, familiarized again to truth and love. Allowing self to experience when experience has only brought hurt and frustration and tiredness and be influenced towards the foundation of this world and beyond it. Hope of goodness.

Peace is then tied to humility. And humility is enjoyment, quite near to love which moves: responsibility. That’s my taxonomy.

My trouble? I become so embedded in the day.. making me smaller than human, and less near to goodness, hope, love and truth.

I hope I’m like everyone else, randomly assaulted by my own memory not only of choices I’ve made, but events which have happened to me which (no matter their insignificance) bring a style of fear and anxiety and self-worthlessness usually called “regret”.

I’ve heard all along (from perfectionists) that I ought live under God’s lead, so that I might live a perfect life here, as an example of God’s goodness for unbelievers; a life of no regret. Aside from the mediate teleology of that idea, I’ve got to bring out a fallacy in there. The assumption is usually that all sin = regret. While this is true in all forms, all regrets are not about sinful action on my part. I’m quite sure I could go through the Bible and my own life and find plenty of even God-directed tasks which turned up regret within the person’s life. Even more, even if I couldn’t find such a list, no one man is perfect to follow God’s leading his whole life. Furthermore, even if one did, there would be regret over being in circumstances where one was mocked (by sinful humanity) for God-directed activities, and that itself can bring regret- focusing on the God-designed power of society to build up or tear down our self worth.

Now, such regret is usually understood to put a damper on future initiative attempts. Certainly among those purporting to always be lead by God, any young fellow would have a hard time stepping forward in action unless he had strong confidence in God’s leading of him. But this is at odds with how God works. Once again, humanity’s interest and desire and rationality have undermined a life. How many of us have, for fear of fear, not initiated an action or conversation.

After this week’s sermon at Augusta’s The Well on Nehemiah 4, which brought out that we ought “build and defend” in a way to use trouble/pain to focus us rather than deter us from God’s mission, I’ve got to wonder, upon each occasion for regret and feelings of lowered self worth, there would have to be a corresponding reality which brings resolution to my fears of the past, and lightens my concern over present fears. Biblically, this resolution is always and forever 1 John 4: a return to love and it’s source. Nehemiah had a similar statement: “Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, great and awesome, and fight for your brethren, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses.” And what of the Lord? Is He not love? And is his love not shown towards us?

All I heard and saw last night was about racial equality. The cameramen were trained on any non-white face they could find. The news seemed to think the ability of American voters to be “color blind” was the issue, as if that fickle over-used phrase was actually capable of accurately communicating the requisite perception-change for social sanity, let alone unity in the states..

Now, I’m frustrated by the history of American racial tension too.  Sure, Obama’s election was “historic” in that it’s never happened before. Sure it’s “valuable” in that African-Americans read their own self-worth through the most significant contemporary achievement of their race (be it the 30′s jazz musicians, 40′s war vets or the iconic Jackie Robinson or Michael Jordan). But, do I do that? I mean, I understand the underdog mentality and I’ve studied plenty of American history to understand the basics of “Black Consciousness” (and walked their streets and entered into their homes and lives).. but do I consider my own self-potential to be equal with a combined Brad Pitt, JFK, and Einstein?

What I’m saying is when you see Einstein, you don’t see a man. You see “significant genius”. When you see a picture of JFK, you don’t see “some guy from massachusetts”, you see “youngest president” or “tragedy”.. something more significant than the person and something more significant than and dissociated with yourself.

It ought be the goal of each person to break through the obvious, the visible, the connotations, prejudices and stereotypes to break into a significant subjective, that is expressed and unleashed into the social world.

Most people know this, few acheive it. Many think they acheive it by being the first with the latest (but that’s just taking on the originality of another).. I laughed at the 90′s “independent” brand. Yes, everyone one of you wearing “Independent” is (a) different than each other (b) a person who created that article of clothing without the help of anyone else. You hand-knit it form the ctton you picked yourself. Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Sites like “Google Trends” help us know we’re mostly the same as other people.

I guess I’m tired of hearing the empty fixation on “color blindedness” when it’s not about NOT seeing color so much as seeing something good in people. On one hand, I’m frustrated with the empty pride of the black-poor who aren’t making anything of their lives, who don’t afford me any opportunity to see them for any significant contribution to society.. But I also know that’s not the issue, that’s it’s more about the old-guard of arrogant white oppressors who thought that telling generation upon generation that they were worthless and fit for nothing; stealing away african-american hope and dignity while losing their own. I do understand the social pressure and consequences of the psychology of worthlessness. It takes a lot to break through it. Societal change through the growth of personal change is not just a rational journey but an emotional, experiential one. It does need a savior on a mission: a man with hope and ability for others to come along and not just agree with (like so much of black-history) but to look up to and work with.

So I’m glad Obama got a landslide victory over an old white guy. I do hope he’ll be a guide for African Americans who don’t understand their own feelings and history; I do hope everyone will ‘wake up’ into responsible, resourceful self-actualization and social reciprocation. But I know that there’s more to actualization than seeing another do it, or being proud of yourself because of your perceived association with another. I’m ready to see original, life-changing significant people of any and all races moving forward into true humanity and taking on the responsiblity over this world granted us in Genesis 1.

As to the importance of life and the reality of it communicating something, we might all agree. Specifically what it’s communicating, to whom, what it means, and the consequences.. that’s not so agreed upon. We understand that sin is bad, and our lives speak our theology. That’s the beginning of one of many arguments towards a holy(character of God) daily lifestyle.

But life isn’t that clean; that sin we try to avoid is undermining, active against us, confusing us, giving us a new foundation which we try to live upon.. and most sadly, it works. Life doesn’t crash-and-burn 100% when you sin. It’s a slow-way down. And the energy of youth is often enough to recover the tail-spins which can come quick. We simply learn to “not do that again.” And that’s what I’ll call “bottom-up” living: when experience teaches, and we build an idealism/expectation from it.

There’s another method, obviously “top-down”.. where we demand our idealism (from whatever source, be it parents, church/religion, youthful hopes, etc). No matter the experience, we will fight against reality to hold to our hopes. Ethics are strong, requirements high. Thanks to American Pragmatism, the latter is laughed at, and the former a stronghold of American secular living.

But my Theology says a few things.. That how I live says stuff about God. Now, for finer points, my life says stuff about God because I claim his way as my own. The “gap” question here is does everyone’s life communicate their theology? The simple answer is yes. But the other ‘gap’ question is, “Does everyone’s life communicate their perspective on God?” And the corollary, “Does everyone’s life display their commentary on God?”

Now, take the simple Christian, who is able to follow the idealism of the conservative american variety. He lives in an undisturbed box that he claims God wants him in, and he has no trouble attaining his perfection. Likely pity is his take on the rest of the sin-filled world. What is he communicating? Transcendence of and isolated God, yes. Immanence of Jesus that eats with the sinners? No. Immanance that loves and helps? No. Certainly, we can call this ‘Christianity’ a half-breed– mixed with selfish isolationism/protectionism of keeping oneself clean first AND last.

Take the avant-guard Christian.. often found on uni campuses, stuck(whether by his own choice or the housing dep’t) with a roomie who sleeps around and invites him to do the same.. Challenged on all fronts to NOT get up on sunday for fellowship, and challenged even on Sunday by people who are in the previous category, and have no concept to help him towards a holiness which is God’s. Immanence is not his trouble.. he’s IN the world, clearly. The transcendence of God’s character which he is originally designed for no longer seems reasonable, possible. The people he meets “outside the box” and still appear happy challenge.

Now, about those people he meets, out there in the world. Some who are taken by their sin and revel in it. Claim it as an identity. What are they saying about God? (1) Perhaps that they have no knowledge of his claim to holiness? Or that they have knowledge (Romans 1!) but there’s just no one ’round confirming it, encouraging them, helping them realize the goodness and long-term best. (2) Alternatively, they are unaware the connection of their daily lives to consequence.. communicating to God that they value something other than him. That’s a scary thing, and I think most people don’t realize their actions are communicating this.

Precisely.

I don’t think I’m aware of this either. I’m not convinced the church is communicating this enough; I’m not convinced that’s my message I take to those in the world.

This means that that college-roommate who’s liberal with his sexuality is directly saying God’s meaning and purpose in sexuality isn’t compelling, valuable, or of any pragmatic use. And the church is quick to jump to try and recover this message (often without the theological base, too!)But to the one who has never heard or perhaps has forgotten, his life isn’t about God, and it isn’t about communicating anything. It’s just as self-centred as the protectionist Christian, only exactly in the opposite direction. (and in this case, the protectionist christian is “better” only because he’s got 1 problem of selfishness not 2!)So selfishness of all is evident. All are indicted, no reason or cause for anything but humility. But pride fills up instead, denying consequence– precisely of God’s concern of such matters.

———-

Restart.

At this point, I’m confused. I started off this post regarding my friend who’s sin is her identity. She’s happy.. honestly happy. She’s got a life that’s working enough for her. There’s enough people confirming her actions, and there’s enough people able to keep her going. All people live by what they see and feel. Bottom-up experiential living is the norm. And that is authentic, which is often more than in the top-down lives.

But I feel I’m squished in the middle. I’ve lived both top-down (lead to such inauthenticity that lead to depression) and I’ve lived bottom-up, which can lead to frustration.

I know God’s message to me is love. That’s enough to solve the frustration of bottom-up living, get oneself out of it’s addictions and demands for peace and ease.

Perhaps that’s one of the homosexual issues. They get frustrated with the opposite sex, while being so comfortable with those who are like-minded and so retract from those who think, act, value differently instead of entering in to the messy other. Just like a married man who doesn’t know what to do with his wife or children, and so retracts into work or his hobbies or an affair where he DOES know what to do with, where he finds solace and ease. Fact is, both are sin. Both are not living fully, both are self-protectionist, and both are “happy” ..just one takes more work: fighting self and ease.

———–

Round 3:

So what of it all? Our lives are filled with our own anti-consequential desires, decisions & actions, all communicating that I’d rather live my bottom-up way than any top-down idealism keeping me from pragmatic reality. All the while, breaking God’s heart, shoving him aside, missing out on an authenticity deeper than the termites have eaten away.

Now, that’s not to say that God’s way is as the conservatives make it out to be. And that’s the confusing part for everyone involved. They present a highly in-authentic, illogical, top-down idealism which only works inside their own box of pretty-pretty-land. That’s not palatable, let alone tasty to most. And it’s not God’s design, hope nor future for any of us.

What am I to say? God’s broken heart over our denial of him is ‘ok’? Our lives communicating constant rejection of him inconsequential? Is there a difference between me trying to not reject him, and me giving up, giving in to my natural choices which speak rejection? And maybe my own effort will only build my pride.

I’ve got to say, the homosexual, the addicted-to-sports-male and the protectionist Christian are of the same tree. All act out of the same motives, though some more hidden than others. Telling God, “f*** you!” nicely doesn’t keep you in the kingdom.

All I can find that is true is continual recognition of all this and of the final payment for these crimes by God himself, and the continual attempts to value him, his ways, his kingdom.. everything else will confuse, everything else is noise.There is no “best” life. There is no one who achieves. We all rationalize and twist and turn.

Some thoughts which fundamental/conservative christians will never approach.

Their usual approach is to “outsource” logical thinking to those in authority over them & run with the conclusions from such people. The consistent trouble with this is mis-used authority, often within churches it takes the form of speaking from outside the realm of one’s knowledge. The corollary to one of the arguments leads to a conclusion of “He’s ‘God’s man’, and God knows everything, so he has access to everything, and his conclusions are best.”

For such fallacious thinking I have no tolerance. It’s amazing people even allow themselves to call such statements ‘reasons’.

By only listening to one source for all epistemology, metaphysics, physics, biology and ethics, one can ONLY wind up with a small, linear path of knowledge and behavior. OF COURSE it’s The Way Things Should Be – they won’t validate any other statements than The One they hear/have heard/agree with.

By outsourcing all logical functions leading to conclusions about reality, a few kinds of people (with their own kind of psycho-pathology!) can created (simply by nature of what people have within themselves.. personality, etc):

1) The paranoid: unable to listen to anything to calm down the thoughts the have from the inside, or hear from the outside.. Having had no familiarity with reason or logic (since outsourced & denied by the church) any tid-bit of semi-reason is more than powerful to put them to sway. To which further abuse from those in category #4 tell them to “Get a grip,” “just believe,” and “Trust Jesus.”.. trust him for what, besides “that he has all things worked out” and “this is for The Good” they cannot say. Who knew they were Platonic?

2) The nice rebel: as stated, the agnostics and mystics. Much like #1, but “on the outside” often who came from the “inside.”

3)  The mean rebel: one who recognizes the abuse of monocular dogmatics/outsourced reason. Becomes sharp with reason to use against #1 or 4. Becomes the authority of #2.

4) The Dogmatic Follower: follows in line with what is said, no matter what, further creating these pathologies.. unable to reason why they are created, unable to admit they create them, unable to fix, only able to label and lambaste. Peaceable, rational, relational interaction is impossible. Statements such as “I don’t understand why you can’t just..(fall in line) are then made to #1 through 3.”

Development occurs in each category generationally. What becomes appalling is when two forms of the same reality develop among each of these group/people types and one is labelled ‘legit’ and the other is demonized.

Simple pride stops people from listening to other sources and admitting there’s more than Their Way Things Should Be.

And on the opposite side, sadly, pride is also what stops the materialist or the mystic or agnostic from finding any conclusion at all. We might even say this psycho-pathology (fear of being wrong) is created by dogmatics.

And isn’t all this mess simply rectified by authorities listening? Reason being restored?  Forbid listening to Ecclesiastes (hmm.. the book of the ecclesia.. church?)

Ecclesiastes 4:13 Better a poor and wise youth Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more. 

Rule #1: Authority != (does not equal) knowledge.

Where this rule is denied, you will find chaos and mindless followers, even those who think they are intellectuals, rebels, independent. All are the same, and all need pride removed, often starting with the Authorities, who shall be judged first and hardest.

Note: Jesus said to teach what he taught; Paul said he taught nothing but Christ. I dare say the ‘church’ receives the most criticism/condemnation form inside and out when it tries to teach something other than the true Gospel: Jesus.