Nashville

A Sociological Approach to Cults

2011-12-04T13:58:00.000-08:00

Culture In Trauma

A Basic Theory of the Origin of Cults

Throughout the 21^stcentury, unprecedented technological advance, economic catastrophe, massmigration and dislocation, war, and other powerful social disturbances havecreated the conditions for the accelerated growth and emergence of radicalsocial movements. These movements have often been defined in terms of theirinferior scale relative to larger social or religious organizations, or interms of their newness relative to older institutions. Neither quality,however, is satisfactorily definitive, for many cultic movements escape one orboth of these classifications, forcing scholars to devote entire chapters tothe task of painstakingly qualifying definitions to sufficiently broaden themto incorporate decidedly similar movements with substantial differences ofscale or age.

The traditional understanding ofthe cult, emphasizing heterodoxy as its central characteristic, is both morereliably applicable and useful although it has largely been abandoned byleading cult experts in their effort to maintain neutrality in the ancientcontest of the church contra heresy.This effort to lend full cultural and religious legitimacy to this variety ofmovements which only constitute a single category on the basis of their want ofsanction from the greater society: on the basis of their social illegitimacy—has led most cult expertsto pursue case-study style research and merely catalog various cults’ practicesand doctrines (which are in no way static) to the neglect of structuralresearch regarding their sociological origins which might lend to “unfavorable”descriptions and definitions.

Dr. J. Gordon Melton, aprofligate specialist in cults and new religious movements, has characterizedthe cult phenomenon as the organic “growth of religious pluralism” (xv) in thewake of the “destruction of religious hegemonies” (xv). This approach only attempts to account forthe emergence of those movements that can be thought of as being religious,categorically distinguishing them from decidedly non-religious movements withnevertheless very similar characteristics and cultures, assuming religious andnon-religious cults to be distinct phenomena. Furthermore, it’s unable toaccount for the historical trends in cult activity—boom periods of cult emergence,membership, and importance during periods of prominence for mainstream“religious hegemonies”. Finally, it fails to explain the incidence of various psychologicaland emotional conditions which are present among cult devotees and participantsat greater frequencies than are found to occur in the greater populations ofsocieties. Melton’s temptingly simple description of the cult phenomenon in theterms of a mere market of supply and demand for “new religious innovation” isfundamentally inadequate because it gives no attention to the important psychologicalcomponent of human behavior (Melton xv).

This essay will explore a theoryregarding the emergence of cult phenomena and sectarianism which posits awidespread crisis of meaning as a necessary condition of cult emergence.Furthermore, I will argue that the fundamental impetuses of these movements arenot religious but psychosocial, and that dramatic economic disruptions andacute social crises contribute prominently to their emergence. Finally, I willarrive at a definition of the cult phenomenon through my description of theconditions of their creation. “In other words, we shall assume that the defining of the cult ought not to beseparated from theory or theories as to why cults exist” (Eister 321).

TheCrisis of Meaning

A sophisticated culture naturallydevelops the means by which its members can orient themselves in the most basicways. It composes a system of meaning by which people can come to termsemotionally, intellectually, and spiritually with the world and their liveslife in it. Such systems of meaning entail, both, “definitions of the conditionof human existence”, as well as the language and symbols in which suchdefinitions are communicated and understood (Eister 322). A system of meaning “provides the terms onwhich the human enterprise, can or should, be assumed capable of being carriedon” (Eister 324). There are a number of actors in the creation of such systemsof orientation; the establishment and adaptation of a meaning system is anorganic, culture-wide operation…

As far aspersonnel are concerned, “orientational institutions” may include preachers orteachers but one need not be either of these (or be employed within anyreligious or educational institutions) in order to perform these vital tasks orinteract with others in their performance. Painters, poets, editors, novelists,journalists, dramatists, composers and others are equally importantparticipants. And the organizations in which they participate are often neitherreligious nor educational!” (Eister324)

A theory proposed by socialscientists such as Max Weber, Meredith Mcguire, Allan W. Eister, and others propose that cults emerge out of the conditions of cultural crises of meaning.Such crises entail “…dislocations in the orientational and communicationalinstitutions of contemporary societies—and especially in the norms and elementsof the communication of ‘meaning’” (Eister 327). Crises of meaning can becaused by dramatic events with widespread effects and ramifications, forexample: devastating and widespread disasters, major economic depressions,drastic changes in large sectors of an economy due to new technologicalinnovation or other economic events, the forceful imposition of an alienculture due to a mass migration or globalization, or oppression from an enemy,etc. Religious historian Sidney E. Ahlstrom describes such a crisis during the1930s’ decade of the Great Depression during which “Sectarian movements aroseand strange new cults came into existence—some for the rich, others for thepoor” (919)…

Americans of every type sought and found scapegoatsand panaceas; racist attitudes and ethnic animosities intensified…Political andreligious views gravitated to the extremes; and demagogues often with the crossof Christ on their banners, began to gather their followers…Old popular beliefscollapsed, confidence in the redemptive power of the American way of lifefaltered, the ‘religion of business’ lost votaries in droves, faith inautomatic progress evaporated (920)

Sociologist Meredith Mcguiredescribes the way in which a meaning system can operate and the way in which itcan be invaded and even invalidated—constituting a crisis of meaning—and thedislocating effect of such a crisis in her book The Sociology of Religion:

The meaning system of the individual or group isable to integrate most routine events into an understandable pattern, ameaningful whole. Some events and experiences, however, are not so easilyinterpreted within the existing meaning system…an entire group can undergosimilar meaning-threatening experiences…Such events are particularlymeaning-threatening if they appear to contradict important aspects of theexisting meaning system… Sometimes a meaning system is completely unable toabsorb a crisis experience…the group supports of the entire meaning system maybe so weakened by the crisis that people are unable to restore a sense of orderand meaning (26).

In the event of a cultural crisisof meaning, the most basic sensibilities and psychological dispositions—theframework of reality—are uprooted alongwith the values, identities, religious beliefs, and ethical norms, etc., thatthey support. The consequence is a critical need for orientation which maybecome pathological. This state of existential disorientation calls forimmediate restructuring of the meaning system “in the face of the namelessterrors of the disordered universe. Only a firm reordering can provide aneffective protection against such terror. A new order must be established andmaintained continually against the occurrence of further order-threateningphenomena.” (Mcguire 35)

In the wake of a crisis ofmeaning, an excited and traumatized culture may seek radical solutions or turnto radicals for solutions. The meaning systems which are most distinctlyalternative from those which were perceived to be dysfunctional and false willbe most attractive to those most traumatized crisis victims. Paradigm shifts in society, for thesereasons, are often eccentric. The sociopaths and eccentrics gain currencyduring these times especially those who are adept in exploiting the fear andtrauma of a culture in crisis.

It becomes necessary, if sociallife is to continue, to establish a new basis of order and a new meaningsystem. If a group’s way of life has been thoroughly disrupted by a depression,for example, the group might reorganize itself around a social movement (e.g.,follower of a new prophet) that offers a new basis of order and meaning forgroup members. (Mcguire 27)

Incidentally, the fear of repeat meaningcrises accounts for the often sectarian character of cults. The effort made bymany cults to achieve complete seclusion from the outer world can be understoodas an effort to guard the cult’s subculture from further meaning subversion. Suchseclusion may entail “physical or symbolic withdrawal from the ‘world’,limiting outside influences (e.g., television or unapproved books, andrestricting members’ social contacts. Especially important is the socializationof children; the group protects its children from exposure to competing worldviews, perhaps by running its own schools…” (Mcguire 31)

Psychological Characteristicsof Cult Participants

French psychiatrist Jean-MarieAbgrall is one of a number of scholars who has conducted research on thepsychological characteristics of cult participants. His research indicatesthat, indeed, cult converts are experiencing psychological conditions andstresses that may contribute to their interest in these eccentric socialmovements. In Soul Snatchers: theMechanics of Cults, he outlines a psychological profile that is commonamong cult converts which includes a variety of pathologies which may beassociated with the anxiety and panic experienced during crises of meaning andtheir precipitating events. He reportsthat, among those most likely to join a cult are “depressive young peopleexperiencing a feeling of inadequacy, even of revolt” and those feeling“lonely, rejected, and sad”(Abgrall 107). His case-study sample population of300 people was drawn “from a variety of groups and from a variety of differentpositions within the groups…including simple participants, people who haveattended courses, thoroughly convinced converts, people who have left a cult,and those who are currently in therapy” (Abgrall 106). According to hisresearch 60% of cult members are “depressive” (107).

Likely victims are often exhibitbroken or strained social bonds and difficulty with socio-culturalintegration…The cults ideal target population is young people who aredepressive or who have broken off from their family and society, who feel theycannot handle day-to-day life and who are searching for substitute solutions…Familyor social conflicts often contribute to a person’s decision to join a cult. Thegroup is a shelter from the aggression that has been felt and it provides amodel of conflict resolution that intellectually satisfies the follower…goinginto a cult, in such cases, serves a pseudo-therapeutic function.(Abgrall 107)

Abgrall also argues that certainkinds of people are less likely to take interest in a cult. Of those morestatistically prone to interest in cults are people between the ages of 18-25,for example. Older adults and more emotionally and psychologically secureindividuals participate in cults more rarely. There are several possibleexplanations for this statistical trend: it may be that older, moreexperienced, and more secure individuals have more sophisticated, and lesssevere ways of responding to crises of meaning than cult participation. Also,it may be possible that some experience such crises less powerfully orprofoundly than others. The English political philosopher John Plamenanatzdiscusses meaning systems in his book Manand Society and in it argues that the need for “reliable meanings…is notfelt by all men; and is felt by some much more strongly than by others” (xix).

The Non-ReligiousEssential Character of Cults

The kinds of needs, for whichpeople turn to cults for satisfaction, appear to be predominantly emotional andpsychological, and the cult to which an individual or group suffering a meaningcrisis might turn may be either religious or non-religious. The motivating needof the individual can be fulfilled by a variety of meaning systems and doesn’trequire any particular religious belief for satisfaction. The importantfunction of cults is to simply meet needs which less flexible institutions areable to meet with their conventional and traditional systems. Even religious cults,therefore, should not be understood as fundamentally religious organizations—thoughsuch cults may espouse some kind of transcendental metanarrative as otherreligious organizations do—because any such religious quality is not a definingcharacteristic. Contrasting that of a sect, a cult’s theology or core ideologytends to be less sophisticated, less consistent and coherent, less structuredand systematic, and less static.

This understanding of theessential nature of cults better accounts for the general homogeneity of cultsdespite their wide variety of narratives…

…the mosaic of cults that we seetoday is spreading the word about topics quite unrelated to religion. Gnosticmovements predominate in Europe and pseudo-science feeds numerous ideologies.The notion of past lives, extraterrestrial civilizations, extra-sensory powersand so on rarely tie in with religious subtexts… Thus it is fundamental that wedefine this phenomenon within a framework that excludes religion as a frame ofreference (Abgrall 15).

Definingthe Cult

Theunderstanding of cult phenomena as empowered by a kind of psychic trauma willentail that cults must offer distinctly alternative cultures and meaning systems.The particular character of such a meaning system or culture is notconsequential provided that it is perceived to be sufficiently exotic by itsparticipants. The need of meaning crisis victims to find a new and reliablemeaning system entails escape and complete abandonment of the former. Theefforts to exchange one’s most fundamental modes of orientation to the worldmight entail adopting new speech and thought patterns, new moral convictionsand ethics, and new mannerisms—all new sensibilities, in addition to a newworld-view. This aversion to thefamiliar causes the individual’s attraction to cults, the characteristic zealof cult participants, and the dramatic personal change associated withbrainwashing.

Thepsychological aversion to the familiar caused by a crisis of meaning creates anescapist culture looking for refuge from a failed meaning system and the institutionsand culture to which it belongs. Cults must be culturally and ideologicallyexotic to provide this refuge. Thus, the traditional conception of cults asstrange and unorthodox cultural expatriates has merit. Strangeness is thesingle common definitive characteristic among cults.

WorksCited

Abgrall, Jean-Marie. SoulSnatchers: the Mechanics of Cults. New York , NY.: AlgoraPublishing, 2000.

Ahlstrom , SidneyE., ed. A Religious History of the American People. Seconded. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972.

Eister, Allan W. "AnOutline of a Structural Theory of Cults." Journal for theScientific Study of Religion. 1972. JSTOR. 16/11/2011 .

Mcguire, MeredithB. Religion: the Social Context. Belmont, CA.: WadsworthPublishing Company, 1981.

Melton, J.Gordon. The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. New York, NY.: Garland Publishing, 1886.

Plamenatz, John. Manand Society. London, UK.: Longman Group, 1963.

Lets Talk About Blame

2011-09-14T18:12:00.000-07:00

Here's an odd piece to kick off a new blogging season. Here I'm imitating Gurtrude Stein's (depicted in the Picasso above) modernist poetry (If it's rightly called poetry) for a writing assignment in my "Dirty Thirties" American Literature course. I find myself reading it and wondering about psychology. For instance, psychoanalysts would probably say that you can find things out about yourself--your subconscious motives and whatnot--through this kind of free-styling expression.

It also seems to resemble some of what goes on when a person sleeps. Is the disassociated and seemingly random cognitive activity during sleep a kind of therapy for the mind? If so, maybe these kinds of exercises therapeutic too. Who knows.

It isn't completely disassociated though, and this makes it somewhat interesting to read (at least for me). It has an aesthetic too (modern art), although it may be contested that my little contribution really counts as "art" at all :). In any case, I enjoyed writing it and I hope you enjoy reading it.

Lets Talk About Blame

The blood, contained, undrained, kind of like a stranger.How naïve to think of those innocent things.

Bear in mind son, blare in mind,bare your mind, there is a bear in your mind son. Spare your sons. If you dare,wear your sons--tear your sons.

Take your treasures, Triton is not teased. Ihad your head once, take mine. Here we are, let’s lunch. Let’s take everything.Lets launch!

Take if you must. I never said I lie. I never said I’d lieand wait forever.

Your husband is gray. Your husband is gay. Is your husbandokay? Let’s play a few bars in the key of sea. Spell yourself carefully. Willit to be. Has it always been this hard to be? Has it been hard to breathe? Iseem to cream cheese on the breeze. Please oh please oh please, breathe!

Wheat girl. You so speak treats. A wave in the sprawling landscape fallingswiftly in the untame. God is not sane. God will not be tame and the loversdon’t care what unfair words the guns may say.

La la lablah blah blah blah. It’s a song. Don’t be jealous of a damn song! Grief. It starts in the key of please. It’s nota song to be sung lightly or spitely, it’s a song to be sung rightly. Sing withyour spleen. Scream.

A hole, a holy hole. Holy hell. Fix your eye on the donutson, not on the whole. Smell it son. Be merciful sun. The word “truth” isn’tspelled with any of your letters, only mine. Smell your letters, they smellfine. Alright?

The Heroic Feminism of Betty Zane

2011-06-02T13:00:00.000-07:00

Here's a research paper I wrote last semester, again, in English Comp I. It's about a Revolutionary War heroine and frontierswoman whose arguments, delivered in the heat of a siege in volunteering to dash 40 yards beyond the safety of the fort to fetch vital gunpowder, portray great courage, both in the face of danger and in the universal struggle of women to preserve their distinct feminine identity in a man's world.

The third paragraph from the bottom has been thoroughly revised since it was submitted to my instructor to incorporate a thought about sexuality, so if it seems a little out of place, then that's why.

The Heroic Feminismof Betty Zane

The legend of Betty Zane is a tale oftimeless appeal. The story’s central themes of selflessness and sacrificialcourage are universally evocative and are regarded as some of the brightest andwarmest attributes of humanity: they make us love being human. But beyond itsinspirational value, as a historical narrative, Betty’s story also offersobservational data regarding the real-life effects of particular attitudes andideas. In particular, Betty’s sensibilities regarding gender-roles should be ofspecial interest to us because they play a critical role in the circumstancesand impetus of her heroism, and they are as much a part of the story as theacts which they frame. In the legend of Elizabeth Zane, nearly as astonishingas Zane’s bold and dangerous dash to fetch vital gunpowder are the argumentsshe is said to have given to persuade Silas Zane—the commander of Fort Henryand her elder brother, to allow her to run the gauntlet in place of one of theyoung men (356 Whithers).

The story is set during the autumn of 1782at the end of a long Revolutionary war—indeed, Zane Grey, a descendant ofElizabeth Zane, tells of a commemorative monument in present day Wheeling WestVirginia which describes the siege of Fort Henry as, “…the last battle of theAmerican Revolution” (vii)—at this time the village of Wheelinghad received word from a spy warning that 250 Indians and 40 loyalist soldierswere marching for Wheeling (Whithers 356).

Wheeling, like many other frontiersettlements which were illegally settled west of the Proclamation Line of 1763,was under the constant threat of attack by various Indian tribes from the region.In these settlements, forts were often built to provide security and a safe placewhere villagers could quickly take refuge and defend themselves, often againstsuperior forces. Fort Henry of Wheeling was built in 1774 and was originallynamed Fort Fincastle in honor of Lord Dunmore, the Virginia colony’s last royalgovernor. Two years later, however, following the Declaration of Independence,and in the spirit of the Revolution, the fort was renamed “Fort Henry” in honorof Virginia governor and American patriot Patrick Henry (Grey xi-xii). InSeptember of 1782, thirteen years after Fort Henry was built, it was besiegedfor the second time (Bellesiles 1264).

Betty was only sixteen years old duringthis second siege of Fort Henry, but even at this early age she already possessedthe courage and character of a great pioneer, patriot, and woman (Britannica). In his book, Chronicles of Border Warfare, historian Lyman Copeland Draperportrays Betty as “…youngactive and athletic;––with precipitancy to dare danger, and fortitude tosustain her in the midst of it.” (359). She had no sisters, buther five brothers were heroes in their own right, already renown in their timefor their own exploits as soldiers and frontiersmen and in their dealings withthe Indians (Grey15-16). These great men were prominent figures in Betty’schildhood and they were among the souls who were ultimately saved by Betty’sswiftness and spirit.

On the day of the attack there were onlytwenty men to defend Fort Henry—less than tenth of the force that opposedthem—but the spirits of the men and women of Wheeling were apparently unshakenby the strength their opposition. When,prior to the attack, Simon Girty, commander of the Indian-loyalist assailants,offered protection to the refugees if they would surrender, he was driven awayby gunfire from the fort. During the days of fighting that ensued, all of theWheeling community was courageously and actively involved in defending FortHenry (Whithers 357).

Every individual hadparticular duties to perform; and promptly and faithfully were they discharged.The more expert of the women, took stations by the side of the men; andhandling their guns with soldier like readiness, aided in the repulse, withfearless intrepidity. Some were engaged in moulding bullets; others in loadingand supplying the men with guns already charged; while the lessrobust were employed in cooking, and in furnishing to thecombatants, provisions and water, during the continuance of the attack.(Whithers225-226)

Both the men and women within Fort Henry fought tirelesslytogether to save themselves and their children’s lives, but after one day andnight of fighting, the supply of gunpowder in the fort was nearly gone. Withonly enough powder for a few more shots remaining, the situation grewdesperate. It became clear that the only way to continue to hold the fort wasto retrieve a new supply of gunpowder from the house of Betty’s elder brother,Col. Ebenezer Zane, located about forty yards from the fort (Whithers 356). Atthis time, while some of the soldiers were deliberating about who should bechosen for the dangerous dash, young Betty Zane spoke up and asked to be permittedto attempt it.

Accountsdiffer on the precise wording of the arguments which Betty offered to herbrother on that day to persuade him to let her go, but among the several variedquotations of Betty’s statements to Captain Silas Zane, a persisting theme isBetty’s frank recognition and courageous acceptance of the gender roles thathad been designated by the blank facts of the desperate situation. “When told that a man would encounter lessdanger by reason of his greater fleetness, [Betty Zane] replied––‘and should hefall, his loss will be more severely felt. You have not one man to spare;––awoman will not be missed in the defense of the fort.’” (Whithers 359)

Betty’s attitude lacks the blistering sensitivity that,today, has expressed itself by androgynizing the way men and women relate andinteract with one another in society. She isn’t shy about her femininequalities—she flaunts them, incapacities and all. Though, by a surprising errorperhaps, she seems to forget to mention her sexuality; it’s a scandalous errorto be sure, but it’s refreshing and it makes her heroism all the moreimpressive. Betty is spectacular, even so in our post-Victorian world where nogirl-hero can be adequate without conspicuous breasts and lips; where thosemost celebrated heroines capture the imagination of wide eyed masses of teenagerswith armies of make-up artists, diet and exercise guru’s, digital enhancers,and cosmetic surgeons at their sides. Betty, with her frumpy name and her yardsof underwear fabric, is a model of feminine heroism. And she isn't aware of a “man’sworld”: she isn’t a reactionary against male chauvinism, but she is well aware of the differences betweenmen and women and without apology she is excellently woman.

Her story ultimatelydemonstrates the usefulness of such a disposition when, against all odds, shesurvives the return trip from the house of Col. Ebenezer Zane, passing throughthe gates of Fort Henry with her precious burden. A commonly attested detail of the story isthat not a single shot was fired at her during her sprint to the house ofEbenezer Zane; instead of firing their weapons the Indians took notice of hergender, shouting “a squaw! a squaw!”. The Indian and British loyalists onlybegan to fire at her when they saw her returning from her brother’s house boundfor the fort with a fresh supply of gunpowder in her possession (Whithers 359).There is good reason to doubt that a man would have received this same passivetreatment. Her chances of surviving thedash appear to have been at least twice as good as those that one of the menmight have faced if he were to have attempted the trip.

Elizabeth Zane’sbold deed remains fixed in American legend, but her heroism extends beyond mereactions. Fort Henry and the men and women of Wheeling owe their gratitude toBetty’s feminine self understanding, to her heroic affirmation of womanhoodimplicit in her readiness to admit the differences that distinguish women frommen and the roles for which these differences naturally prefer them.

Works Cited

Bellesiles, Michael."Wheeling, West Virginia." Encyclopedia of theAmerican Revolution: Library of Military History. Ed. Harold E. Selesky. Vol. 2. Detroit: CharlesScribner's Sons, 2006. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 16 Mar. 2011.

"Betty Zane." Encyclopædia Britannica.Encyclopædia Britannica Online.Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.Web. 05 Apr. 2011.

Grey,Zane. “Betty Zane.” Champaign, Ill.: ProjectGutenberg, 2004. Net Library. Web. 16 Mar.2011.

Whithers,Alexander Scott, and Lyman Copeland Draper. “Chroniclesof Border Warfare.” A NewEdition. Cincinnati, Oh. : The Robert Clarke Company, 1895. Project Gutenberg.E-book. 16Mar. 2011

Declaration of Independence from Chronocentrism

2011-05-21T14:37:00.000-07:00

Thisis a paper that I enjoyed writing for my honors comp 1 class; it's written inthe Jeffersonian 18th century style and modeled after the Declaration ofIndependence (obviously).

MyDeclaration

When inrational pursuit of the truth, it is found to be necessary that any man shouldamend his own intellectual habits by which ideas are estimated, and presume nosuperiority for the ideological fashions of his time beyond that which theirown merit and the unbiased reason itself will permit, a due respect for thecustoms of the discipline of thought demands that he declare the causes whichimpel him to such a position.

I holdthese truths to be self evident that, in all times, minds are created with theequal faculty to know the truth, and that their power of reason, the whichendowed by their creator, holds them under obligation by certain unalienableduties, that among these are intellectual honesty, diligence, and the pursuitof truth. These duties entail that man should govern his mind with constantvigilance such that when a persuasion becomes itself an impediment to theseends, his duty is to rebut and rebuke it, and to prefer more sound and justattitudes which shall be more effectual to the advancement of the true objectsof the reason, and if such a fallacious persuasion should publically prevail,to earnestly advocate for its correction. Courtesy dictates that contention andcriticism should not be obtruded against prevalent attitudes for purposes ofminor consequence, but when such dispositions so pervasively and densely cloudthought and obstruct truth and threaten to reduce multitudes under manifest andbigoted delusion, then such critical opposition is not merely warranted butdemanded by all justice and truth. Such is the condition, very often, ofthe modern western man that ignorance and prejudice against the institutionsand intuitions of the past and of its orthodoxies, and the submission tointellectual fashion have inhibited the very mechanics of the reason and oftenblinded its victims to the verity of the most obvious and demonstrable firstphilosophies. But let the proceeding facts utter their own unadornedaccusations against modern chronocentrism that the rectitude of this declarationmay be unmistakable.

It hasoften lured western nations into meddling amongst the affairs of thosecivilizations whose values and institutions they have unjustly deemed to bevestigial, detestable, and beneath their dignity without the sufficient understandingor rational deliberation that is due for such a judgment.

It hasoften possessed us to unjustly force ourselves upon these nations to subjectand govern them under our unauthorized rule or under the rule of despots whomwe have appointed.

It has often emboldened uswith arrogant and foolish confidence such that we rashly distain tradition andthe wisdom of our ancestors, scorning their customs, and inviting all perditionand error providing only that it be of a novel and untraditional variety.

It has often incitedadolescent audacity, deliberate ignorance, and an unwarranted confidence in thequality of our own doctrines, institutions, cultures, and governments that weare even possessed of the impetus to exhume our defenseless forefathers in orderthat we may take them to task for their sins and desecrate them.

It has, by the power of a moband through democratic tyranny oppressed and crushed under foot some who havenot ceased to respect tradition.

It has widely stunted the duecuriosity and appreciation of ancient thoughts and dialectics, it has alsogreatly narrowed our interest in history; it draws us only to those mostpresent memories, leading us to widely forget or revise the greatest ofstories, myths, and legends and the richness of predeceased cultures, orremember and love only those which remind us of ourselves and of our own birth.

Its narcissism hasvulgarized both man and God by the disfigurement of their relation one toanother: it has vulgarized God by revising His image so that He might be worthyof us and of our great modern sensibilities, and in so doing, as God’screature, man has also been vulgarized, for he is no longer the creation of agod, but a creation of his own hand.

It has invited the abuse ofreason herself and the violation of her true purpose by widely encouragingfrivolous appetites for mere intellectual fashion and amusement.

It has often deformed truthand justice by tempting us to design them afresh, and by teaching us to reject,in all cases whatsoever, those time-honored things which have known to be trueand just.

It has opposed true democracyand unjustly sought to vest unbalanced power and authority in the members ofthe small oligarchy of men who, by chance, presently happen to be living.

Ijudge it to be true that if time has indeed favored anyone, then such favormust belong those who take counsel with the dead; it must belong to those whomost honor the events and peoples of the past by clearly knowing,understanding, and learning from them. It must belong to those who most humblyand fairly consider the merits and faults of bygone cultures with the samefair-mindedness by which they consider those of their own. No culture isinherently superior, and time has no prejudices; having the capacity for greathumanity or great brutishness is the natural condition of all men and of thesecapacities time is no corollary.

Therefore,by the same natural power of reason which has been vested in all men, whoseobvious purpose is the true and accurate knowledge, inference, andunderstanding of its perceptions, and by which error and inaccuracy are impliedboth, to be, and to be its antithesis, I solemnly declare myobjection, renunciation, and resolution to be independent from allchronocentric prejudice of thought and belief, and admit no natural superiorityin quality for men of any age or culture but confess equality among them all,and to this conviction, and against vanity and conceit, I pledge all of thevigilance and integrity that I possess.

JasonPaone

Another shock from the defibrillator

2011-05-20T18:49:00.000-07:00

It's been over six months since anything has been published around here and the last post wasn't even something that I wrote. Clearly this is no way to keep a weblog or readers around, but I'm not going to abuse your eyeballs with the kind of silly apologetic fawning that we've all seen in the comeback posts of amateur bloggers (like myself) before Facebook's blurt became the preferable medium of social exchange and expression.

Instead, I'll introduce you to a new genre of literature that will most likely become the staple around here. Allow me to introduce the great essay: the most abundant literature on my computer, and probably the only content that I will be able to consistently post for a while.

Feel free to hack them up; I would be glad for some critical feedback and an opportunity to improve my academic writing. Seriously, don't be gentle with me.

The Balnibarbian Heresies

2010-12-16T17:48:00.000-08:00

By J. Budziszewski
   Far away on the other side of the world is a marvelous land named Balnibarbi. As you may have learned from Guliver's Travels, its capital is the great city of Lagado, and in this place is an even greater Academy, filled with the most brilliant people in the world. Unfortunately, Mr. Gulliver was able to stay at Lagado Academy for only a short while, and there were many interesting things about the Academy that he did not have a chance to discover. Having recently taken the opportunity for a longer visit, I offer my findings to you.

   The oldest and most honorable department in the entire Academy of Lagado is devoted to the study of color. Indeed, the philosophy of color has been studied in Balnibarbi for something like twenty-four centuries. It was the Balnibarbian scholars, for instance, who discovered that all of the colors in the universe come from just three primaries-yellow, red, and blue. The details are well known even in our part of the world: orange is derived from red and yellow, green from blue and yellow, purple from blue and red, and so on. Of course the primary colors themselves are not derived from anything.

   Unfortunately, over the last few hundred years the great tradition of Balnibarbian color philosophy has degenerated, as wave upon wave of intellectual revolution has swept the Lagado Academy. Those few scholars who still believe in the doctrine of primary colors are now considered reactionary, retrograde, regressive--in a word, uncool. The three main parties of reform are the Monochromes, the Antichromes, and the Neochromes.

   The Monochromes object to the theory of primary colors because they do not think it goes far enough. In their view, it's all well and good to say that orange comes from the primary colors red and yellow, purple from the primary colors red and blue, and so on-- but what, they ask, is the ultimate basis of color? They reason that there must be an even more primary color than yellow, red or blue--a fundamental color from which even the primary colors are derived. For instance, some of the Monochromes think the color from which all colors come is chartreuse. Others think it puce. The latest Monochromes identify it as plaid. Although these theories have disappointing consequences for interior decorating, they are bold and original, and to be bold and original is of course the goal of scholarship.

   The Antichromes are the next party. Although they too reject the theory of primary colors, with their keener rods and cones they see right through the Monochromes. Chartreuse couldn't be the fundamental color, they observe, because all one can derive from it is various shades of greenish-yellow. Likewise puce couldn't be the fundamental color, because all one can derive from it is various shades of purplish-brown. Finally, plaid couldn't be the fundamental color because it isn't a color at all.

   The truth, say the Antichromes, is that there is no fundamental color from which even the primary colors can be derived. This is the crux. For if there is no fundamental color, then color has no Ultimate Basis; and if color has no Ultimate Basis, then color isn't real. This logic is so far beyond previous semblances of reason that it might almost be considered a new logic altogether. Its conclusions are equally breathtaking: everything that we call a color is just a figment of our imagination, a projection of some desperate human desire onto a universe of cold and unvarying gray. For discovering the tragic truth, expressed in their motto, "Color is Dead," the Antichromes are rightly praised as pioneers. They eat only burnt toast and milk, and watch only black-and-white television.

   Finally we come to the Neochromes, the most avant-garde party of all. They agree with the Antichromes that color has no Ultimate Basis; they agree that the universe is gray, the experiences of hue and tint existing only in our imaginations; they agree that we create the blue of the night and the blush of the rose in our minds, rather than somehow discovering them in the order of things. But what, they ask, is so tragic about that? Is it not liberating? Smash the palettes! Pulverize the prisms! Away with the tyranny of yellow, red, and blue! The creator of color is MAN!

   Filled with revolutionary passion, the Neochromes, like the Monochromes, divide into factions. Some Neochromes say that every human being is entitled to his own primary colors. Other Neochromes object that permitting every human being his own primary colors would lead to difficulty with traffic signals and things of that sort; although every country is entitled to its own primary colors, they say, individuals must toe the line. In the end, however, communitarianism comes to pretty much the same thing as individualism because no two communitarians can ever agree upon the spectrum their country should use. In a sort of compromise, they usually wind up mixing all the colors together and painting everything a tepid shade of brown. Even so they quarrel over whether it should be sepia, beige, or taupe.

   We too have a great tradition. Just as the Balnibarbians learned long ago that all color in the universe is derived from just a few primary colors, so we learned long ago that all moral law in the universe is derived from just a few primary moral laws. Just as the primary colors are the same for everyone, so these moral laws are the same for everyone. Just as the primary colors are recognized by all who hear of them, so these laws are recognized by all who hear of them. Just as the primary colors do not have to be derived from anything because they are the source of the other colors, so the natural laws do not have to be derived from anything because they are the source of the other moral laws. And just as the Balnibarbians have lost their ancient wisdom about color, so we have lost our ancient wisdom about morality. The colorblind lead the colorblind.

   In the first place we have thinkers who treat moral law as the Monochromes treat color. They insist on some ultimate value which they rank as even more fundamental than the natural law. As to what this ultimate value is, they divide, some naming pleasure, some naming liberty, some naming another value, such as privacy. Despite all their disagreement, these thinkers have one thing in common: any moral law that cannot be traced to their ultimate value they simply ignore. In this way they manage to ignore quite a bit.

   In the second place some of our thinkers treat moral law as the Antichromes treat color. They insist that there is no real good and evil, no real right and wrong, and that the universe is merely an enormous screen onto which we project our desires and call them moral laws. According to Friedrich Nietzsche, the mentor of this dementia, God is dead, therefore everything is permitted.

   Finally we have thinkers who treat moral law as the Neochromes treat color. Just as Neochromes think that human beings can create new primary colors, so these thinkers insist that human beings can create new and different moralities. Of course, this is absurd. If someone claimed to have created new primary colors, you could be sure that he had merely made a new blend of the old ones, and the same is true for the primary principles of good and evil.

   For instance, you can make up a new rule that killing infants is right instead of wrong. Nobody can stop you. But if you want to get pregnant young women to believe it, the only way to do so is to confuse them about the moral laws they already know--to tell them, for instance, that it isn't really killing but that it is somehow compassionate and prudent. Is it clear how this works? It is just like a painter who likes to primary colors, dislikes the third and, after a little mixing, claims to have invented a new one.

Does the Sexual Doctrine of the Law of Love Make Sense?

2010-11-24T17:04:00.001-08:00

A logical critique

Thetarget of this post is to analyze the doctrine of The Law of Love and itspremises from a non-theological perspective, judging the sensibility of itssupporting premises and the logical consistency and coherency of its argumentsin their own right and without respect to any Christian doctrines or theology. Thefirst two posts in this series have criticized The Law of Love with argumentswhich were based on other Christian assumptions like the authority and validityof the Bible, and the nature of marriage etc, but this post will not invoke anytheology or Christian doctrine. This post will feature only the claims andarguments that The Law of Love itself makes. The question that I’m concernedwith in this post can be put simply in this way: does the sexual doctrine of The Law of Love make sense?

TheLaw of Love literature which most famously features The Family’s doctrine ofextramarital sex is really a kind of social philosophy. Other Familypublications that make reference to the Law of Love often stress that thesexual aspect of The Law of Love is not the primary subject of this doctrinewhich is really an ethic. Sex is significant in the doctrine of The Law of Loveas a social manifesto because it is perceived to be useful to the end ofachieving The Law of Love’s social ideal.

DavidBerg believed that sex has long been misunderstood by the Christian west, andthat it has uses which go beyond procreation and the marriage bed. In The Lawof Love’s social sexuality, the body is not personal property and neither issex the property of marriage, but both, belonging to The Lord, are to be usedfor the unification and well being of the community. The Law of Love offers amodel for society in which sex is a kind of social adhesive, creatinginter-family unit cohesion.

Iwanted to mention that part of the premise for The Law of Love’s socialsexuality is not so unorthodox. For instance, the idea that the body is notone’s own property and that sex’s purpose is social—I think most Christianfaith traditions would find these two statements to be fairly agreeable. Ibelieve that the major disagreement is centered on these two fundamentalissues:

1. Sex’stelos, the purpose for which sex wasdesigned.

2. Theways in which sex can and ought to be used in society.

Pointnumber 1 is a principally a theological issue, but point 2 is not strictlytheological. The Law of Love (and related Family literature), argues for anumber of special and unusual uses for sex. These arguments are subject to therules of logic and common sense. In other words, The Law of Love’s conclusionsabout how sex can be used are arrived at by logical methods which are eithercorrect or incorrect and they are based upon premises that are either true orfalse. My goal in this post is to consider those arguments and their methodsand evaluate the truth of their premises.

Toanswer the question in the title of this post—“Does the doctrine of the law oflove make sense?”—I’m going to scrutinize three arguments that are used tosupport three uses of sex that The Law of Love proposes. The Law of Love is amodel for society in which sex is used as a social adhesive and a charitablecommunity resource, but if these arguments aren’t sound, then their conclusionscould only be true by accident. Likewise if these arguments aren’t sound thenthe law of love’s sex doctrine is also unsound and The Law of Love’s practiceof extramarital sex could only be morally correct by accident.

I’veknown many people who, whether they practice the doctrine or not, seem to viewthe sexual doctrine of The Law of Love as having a very noble purpose. Surelythis view is reasonable if these assumptions about sex are correct. If sex cando the things that The Law of Love claims, then The Law of Love must be veryuseful; if sex is as important to health and well being as we are told, thenThe Law of Love must be very charitable. And if sex is capable of saving peoplefrom loneliness then my friends are right, The Law of Love must be of verynoble intent. But if sex doesn’t work in those ways, then the act ofextramarital sex can’t have the value that The Law of Love ascribes to it andthose who ascribe to it have been mislead.

Let’sget cracking! The following are three uses of sex which are fundamental to thedoctrine of the law of love; these are some of the ways that the law of loveuses sex…

NowI’m going to do my best to clearly articulate the arguments that The Law of Lovemakes in support of these unique uses of sex.

(Note)There are a few technical terms which are used in this post that have veryspecific meanings with respect to the disciplines of Logic and CriticalThought. Logical validity and soundness, for instance, are two terms that Iwill repeatedly use. If you aren’t already familiar with these terms then youcan read about them at this website: http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Charitable Sex

(Sex as an act ofphilanthropy)

1. Christiansought to be charitable: giving what is in their power to give to those who arein need of it.

2. Humanbeings need sex in the same way that they need food, sleep, and exercise.

3. Thereare people who don’t naturally get enough sex, and so, are in need of it.

Conclusion:Christiansought to make themselves sexually available, when it is in their power to doso, to people who need sex.

Ibelieve that this argument is the most important that the law of love offers.If sex has the capacity to be used charitably then not only is it easy to seehow sex is an important social tool, but also how the law of love really is aChristian doctrine.

Themain problem that I find with this argument concerns the truth of premise 2. Isit really true that human beings need sex in the same way that they need food,sleep, and exercise? Is sex really necessary to life and health the way that food,sleep, and exercise are? In what sense can this possibly be true?

Thereare clear and adverse effects to a body that does not sleep, eat, or exercise,while there is no clear evidence that sexual abstinence poses any threat tohealth. On the contrary, sexual abstinence may be an effective way to avoidmany real health risks. Furthermore we have at our disposal numerous examplesof people (and no lack of Christians) who have chosen a life of sexualabstinence for some reason or other and do so without any report of mal health.

Theargument for sex as a meaningful charitable act relies heavily on theassumption that sex is in some way essential to health. But we have no reasonto treat sex as an emotional or biological necessity. I’m not denying that thereare certain health benefits associated with a healthy sex life, but to say “sexis healthy” is a very different thing than saying “health depends on sex”, orthat sexually abstinent people can’t also enjoy good health.

Premise2 is clearly false; our “need” for sex can’t be compared to our need for food,sleep, or exercise, so the argument for charitable sex is unsound. But is therea way that this argument could work without assuming that sex is a biologicalrequirement? Can sex still be a meaningful act of charity if it doesn’t fulfillany biological needs? Let’s revise the argument and see…

1. Christiansought to be charitable: giving what is in their power to give to those who arein need of it.

2. Humanbeings ~~need~~ like sex. ~~in the same way that they need food, sleep, andexercise.~~

3. Thereare people who don’t naturally get ~~enough~~ asmuch sex as they would like, and so, ~~arein need of~~ desire it.

Conclusion:Christiansought to make themselves sexually available, when it is in their
power to doso, to people who need sex.

Ifthe argument was valid before, it certainly isn’t now. That is, the conclusiondoesn’t follow necessarily from the premises. It may be possible to make a moremodest argument which argues for the possibilityof sexual charity as a concept--although much more eminently important forms ofcharity abound which do satisfy unmet biological requirements. But thisargument which argues for the existence of a moral responsibility to satisfythe needs of the undersexed is logically unsound.

Sex as a remedy for loneness

1. Christiansought to be charitable: giving what is in their power to give to those who arein need of it.

2. Peopleneed companionship.

3. Somepeople don’t have a personal companion, and so, are deprived of companionship.

4. Havingsex with a person assuages loneliness and provides companionship.

Conclusion: Christiansought to make themselves sexually available, when possible, to people who don’thave a personal companion and who suffer from loneliness.

Iknow that I’m no expert when it comes to matters of the heart, but premise 4seems very dubious to me. I doubt that sex is really what a lonely heartdesires; clearly what a lonely person needs is companionship. But maybe someonewill argue, “Do you deny that a person can experience companionship whilehaving sex?” Well no, I agree that a person is more likely to experiencecompanionship while having sex than he would while spending time alone, but thisfact isn’t only true for sexual acts. This same argument can be made for anyactivity that involves two or more people:“Christians ought to play checkers, when possible, with people who suffer fromloneliness”.

Peopledon’t need to be having sex to keep each other company, and if shared companyis what alleviates loneliness then I don’t see what sex adds to the solution inthe first place.

Butthen again, sometimes people want a special kind of companionship: not justsomeone to play checkers with, but someone to share a romantic love with. Inthis case I still don’t see what sex by itself can do. When a person wantsromantic love (Eros), sex alone still isn’t sufficient. They still need aperson to love and belong to, not just a person to perform sex with.

Sex gains its meaning and all of the romancewith which we imbue it when it is practiced between a man and woman who belongto each other. On its own, sex, after all, is nothing but a biological functionof the body that even the insects perform; it’s the context of sex that makesit so special, or so vulgar, or so plainly biological.

Ifsex could remedy loneliness on its own, then we would have to change ourattitude about prostitution and the idea that “you can’t buy happiness”.

The argument for sex as a remedy forloneliness relies on a premise that is naively ignorant of the nature of love,sex, loneliness, and of human emotions (apparently more so than I am). It alsoisn’t logically sound or valid. Sex is not the same thing as love, romance, andcompanionship, and it’s a poor substitution for those things.

Sex for Greater Unity

1. Itis good for Christians to strive to live in love and unity with one another.

2. Sex engendersunity between people when it is practiced in accordance with The Law of Love.

Conclusion: To use sex (in accordance with the guidelinesof The Law of Love) to achieve love and unity in a community is good and right.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of theargument, that premise 2 is correct, and that sex can create a bond of unitybetween its two subjects who have practiced it in accordance with The Law ofLove. In this case the conclusion still doesn’t follow by necessity from thepremises. Even if sex can do what The Law of Love claims, it is not necessarilygood and right that sex should be used for such a purpose. I suspect that themost important reasons why sex ought not to be used to create social cohesionthe way that The Law of Love proposes are theological, but I promised at thebeginning of this post not to appeal to theology so I won’t discuss them. Butthere are other strictly logical reasons why this argument’s conclusion doesn’tfollow from the premises. For instance, let’s assume that premise 2 is true: let’sassume that when extramarital sex is practiced in accordance with The Law ofLove, greater unity is always the result. Before the new doctrine can go on themarket we need to test for error. We need to have an accurate idea about howthe doctrine will perform in society before it is made available to the public.We need to know how often people will fail to practice it correctly, and whatwill be the consequences for such malpractice. It may be that in attempting topractice such a doctrine so many would fail to practice it correctly that theharm which would result in terms of divorces and broken homes would be toogreat for this doctrine to be worth attempting. But this is just one examplethat is meant to show that the argument “Sex for Greater Unity” isn’t logicallyvalid.

And although I didn’t address thevalidity premise 2 at all, it isn’t because I don’t find it to be verydoubtful. I suspect that this is yet another overextension of sex’s abilitiesand correct uses. And if sex were such a social utility as The Law of Loveapparently believes it to be, I wonder why The Family has been the only societyto think of it.

As a side note, it seems to be a commonapproach to evaluate The Law of Love by how it functions in theory: to talkabout the things it can do in the ideal situation. This approach seems to beessentially flawed because The Law of Love is not intended to be applied intheory but in a real society full of imperfect people and non-ideal situations.If The Law of Love can’t work in a real society, then it’s useless to us. Soit’s useless to evaluate this doctrine in abstract, its value is connected toits usefulness to us. For example: it doesn’t matter if a miracle drug can, intheory, cure cancer if it kills all or most of the people to whom it isadministered.

*Bonusfeature*

I want to also mentionan argument that may not belong strictly to The Law of Love itself but seems tobe a popular defense of the doctrine no less.

This is one of my personal favorites, I callit “The Evolutionary Argument” and it goes something like this…

The Evolutionary Argument

1. People(men in particular) are not designed for monogamy as illustrated by ourpowerful desire for extramarital sex.

2. Toprevent the body from performing its polyamorous function is unnatural andunreasonable.

Conclusion: Extramaritalsex is normal and natural behavior that shouldn’t be discouraged or prevented.

This is an argumentthat I have heard with surprising frequency and has usually been articulated byyoung men.

What surprises meabout this argument are its underlying assumptions. For one, it doesn’t assumeany Christian doctrines about the body or about marriage, and seems to assume avery evolutionary theory about human sexuality (which is an unusual idea for aFamily member to be in possession of). It also acts strangely (almostnihilistically) ignorant of reasons why people (both Christians andnon-Christians [but especially Christians]) ought to, and in fact do, routinelydeny their biological impulses from having authority over their person and behavior This argument with its hidden assumptions canbe easily modified to argue in favor of things like rape.

But back to a logicalperspective, both of the supporting premises of this argument are veryquestionable and presume a number of underlying assumptions that are purelytheoretical themselves. The premises of this argument need their own arguments,and the hidden presuppositions need to be substantiated and supported as well.This argument also “begs the question” by assuming the conclusion to be true inpremise 1: that people aren’t meant to be monogamous. This is the equivalent tosaying that people are meant to be polyamorous which is essentially the sameproposition that is made in the conclusion.

Closingargument

I’ve taken my time inprevious posts to theologically evaluate The Law of Loves sex doctrine, but towhat rigors is it really necessary to subject an argument that is itselflogically flawed at the start? The sexual doctrine of the law of love can’tstand on its own two feet so it needs no defeater. Its arguments don’t makesense and their conclusions: the proposed ways in which sex can be used forgood, are unfounded. We have no good reason to believe that sex can be ameaningful act of charity, or that sex can or should be used to create socialharmony, or that sex alone is a functional solution for loneliness as The Lawof Love claims. I want to close this post with two open ended questions:

1. Whatmeaning is left in the practice of extramarital sex?

2. Whatpurpose does this act accomplish if not the ones which The Law of Love claims?

Forsaken--The Passion of The Christ

2010-11-16T09:38:00.001-08:00

This is my first creation with my new purchased copy of Vegas 9. The soundtrack features a song called "Forsaken" produced by a Christian metal band name As I Lay Dying and the video clips have been taken from Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ". If you don't speak metal you can find the lyrics for the song here.

This is a project that was inspired by the song that it features. The chorus of the song says: "I know you are the one we left behind yet somehow we are the ones who are alone", and this is sort of the theme of the video.

I wanted to express that we all have had our part in the killing of Christ and we have denied him like Peter did, through apathy, through weakness, through deliberate ignorance, through our vices, through our love of this world we have obstructed his "good infection" and have helped to kill the goodness that he introduced to this world. I wanted to give a sense of what a dark and hideous thing it is that we've done.

So without further adieu I present to you my video.

Keep in mind that The Passion of The Christ is an R rated film because of its graphic violence. This video does contain strong graphic violence as well and is not suitable for some audiences.

P.S. I've already finished my third post on The Law of Love and will be posting it early next week.

Christianity and Extramarital Sex LOL2

2010-07-07T08:16:00.000-07:00

“Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it: the old Christian rule is, ‘Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence’.” (Lewis)

If you have ever been a member of The Family International and have tried to explain to some outsider how it’s possible that extramarital sex could be a virtuous act for a Christian to commit, then you may already have an idea of how strange this doctrine apparently is. In the Christian world The Family’s extramarital sex doctrine can be a very awkward topic for discussion; it’s difficult for people who are familiar with the Christian religion to understand how extramarital sex could ever be permitted—much less endorsed by Christians when the Bible has so unambiguously prohibited it. From the time of the ancient theocracy of Israel until the early Christian church there has been no lack of clear cut commands and admonitions to define Christian sexuality. The Bible is unmistakably clear about how sex should, and should not, be practiced, and this clarity has imbedded itself into western culture to the extent that, today, even the secular folks will recite scriptures about marriage and adultery when their conception of Christian sexuality is challenged.

In my last post I gave a practical argument against extramarital sex based on the nature of marriage. I argued that extramarital sex inherently contradicts marriage by its correlation with divorce. I also argued that, although The Law of Love claims exemption from this correlation, the apparent divorce problem in The Family suggests that the extramarital sex application of The Law of Love, in practice, may not be an exception.

Having explored the some of the practical considerations for The Family’s practice of extramarital sex I want to now analyze this doctrine in theory. The Law of Love claims to reconcile the Family’s practice of extramarital sex with the Bible and its many prohibitions of adultery. Let’s take a look at the approach The Law of Love takes in doing that. Let’s also take a close look at the things that Jesus and the apostles said in the New Testament to get an idea of what they might have thought about The Family’s practice if they were around today. Let’s also find out why the greater Christian church has not come to the same conclusions that The Family has espoused about sex and Christian moral law.

(Note) Throughout this series I’ll be building my arguments on Christian premises. Some of you have argued that The Family’s doctrines don’t need to agree to any Christian premises, but I think most of you will disagree with this proposition as I do. The Family an inextricably Christian socio-religious movement. It can no more renounce Christianity than it can renounce all of its members and still exist. So I’m going to continue to appeal to Christian premises. This post will focus mostly on the question of the compatibility of the extramarital sex doctrine of the law of love with the Bible.

Before I unpack my biblical evidence against the extramarital sex doctrine I’m going to make an introduction to it and an argument that makes use of a great source of guidance for Christians which The Family has largely ignored to its own peril. I want to make an appeal to tradition.

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of their birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.” (Chesterton)

Our culture has been predisposed to disregard tradition. The Family is a social phenomenon that emerged during a time of civil disobedience and social paradigm subversion. A major theme of The Family’s self understanding has always been “the revolution”. The Family as a movement has represented a protest against both western society and the Christian tradition. While the protest was likely valid in perhaps many respects, the degree to which we have often carried out our protest has, in my view, been a big mistake. G.K. Chesterton has called tradition the democracy of the dead because when we observe tradition we are honoring and taking counsel with some of the wisest and most virtuous from times past whose merit has called for our attention. Christians today are blessed to be able to take advantage of the ideas and beliefs of the many inspired, intelligent, and devout Christians and Jews from throughout time.

The Family’s extramarital sex doctrine doesn’t only turn its back on some stuffy, rural, south-eastern Evangelicals that got under David Berg’s skin. It turns its back on virtually all of the great Christians throughout history: people like John Bunyan, Martin Luther, St. Augustine, David Livingstone, John Calvin, St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Irenaeus, St. Peter, and the apostles just to name a few. These Christians read the same Bible; they worshipped and devoted their lives to the same God who we serve today. All of these great Christians who were so blessed and anointed have drawn a very different conclusion about the same biblical passages which our culture has used to invoke the permission of extramarital sex. These great pillars of the Christian church would have undoubtedly protested this doctrine and practice vigorously and indignantly.

The Family’s doctrine of extramarital sex is very unlikely to be true by virtue of its heresy. This doctrine is at odds with the positive descriptions of marriage and sexuality that have been asserted and honored by virtually all of Christendom, and it ignores the commands and admonitions against extramarital sex that most Christians have strived to obey. This is a very significant reason to be uneasy about this doctrine and about our interpretation of The Bible.

About that interpretation: If any of you are unfamiliar with, or need a refresher on the doctrine in question you can visit this open webpage: www.thefamily.org/dossier/statements/lol.htm. Here you will find virtually all of the theology behind the Family’s practice of extramarital sex in a ten minute read. The lengthy series entitled The Law of Love mostly discusses practical considerations of the Law of Love. As far as the doctrine itself goes the series doesn’t really go any farther than what cursory info you’ll find at that website.

Adultery and the Law of love’s Semantic Error

Now it’s time to talk about some of those Biblical prohibitions. We need to begin by thinking about the word adultery. The Family publications which make provision for the practice of extramarital sex usually rely on a special definition of the word adultery.

“… [However, for a(n) (extramarital) sexual act] to not be classified as adultery, the act must fall within the guidelines of God’s Law of Love.” (Zerby)

The idea that’s implied by the above passage appears in most of the publications that seek to defend the biblicality of the Family’s extramarital sex doctrine. The idea that Maria seems to be proposing here is that when the term adultery is used in the Bible the authors aren’t referring to all extramarital sex, but specifically to kinds of extramarital sex that are sinful: extramarital sex done wrongly. This distinction is important because it gives The Family’s extramarital sex doctrine cover from a lot of New Testament fire. If the term adultery, as used by biblical authors, only refers to extramarital sex that’s sinful, then it would seem that they have not only left allowance for another kind of extramarital sex, but that they have even implied that it exists. Despite the scandalous sort of appeal that this definition of adultery may have it really doesn't represent what ancient Jews meant when they used the word. There are actually several problems with this adaptation of the word adultery, not least of which is the actual meaning of the word. The Greek word mocheia that New Testament and Septuagint translators rendered “adultery” long predates the writing of the New Testament and Septuagint, and was widely used by Mediterranean cultures before any Judeo-Christian moral implication was tied to it at all. The classical Greeks used the word specifically in reference to the illicit sexual conduct between any married person with any person other than his or her spouse, or between a non-married person and a married person. The word adultery had a very specific meaning both before Hellenist Jews began using it and also afterward.

As a side note: The early modern English word adultery which the 16^th century Bible translators used in the King James translation is taken from the Late Latin word adulterare which means “toward another”. The synonymy of the word adultery with verbs like to corrupt or to alter is due to the fact that historically extramarital sex tended to corrupt (adulterate) the lineage of a man and not necessarily because of any moral implications of the word.

The Law of Love literature confuses the definition of adultery with what are only the word’s stigmatic characteristics: things like immorality and sin. The word adultery has never meant merely a morally corrupt sexual act. And, for example, the word murder has a number of stigmas for most of us: for instance, “treacherous act” “criminal act” “sociopathic act”, but we would be wrong to say that any of these stigmas of the word murder are its basic definition. In the same way the word adultery refers to the particular act of extramarital sex of which immorality is a commonly perceived to be synonymous.

When the Bible’s authors used the term adultery we can be sure that they didn’t mean “extramarital sex done wrong”. Ancient Jews couldn’t have conceived of a “correct” way to go about having extramarital sex so there would have been no need of such a distinction. When they use the word adultery there is no kind of extramarital sex to which they were not referring. So there isn’t any sense in saying “when extramarital sex is practiced according to The Law of Love it isn’t adultery” that’s kind of like saying that when sex is practiced in a swimming pool, it’s no longer sexual intercourse. The meaning of the word adultery does not give exemption to the extramarital sex that The Law of Love permits. If the Bible forbids adultery then The Law of Love needs to find some way to disregard what it says because the definition of the word adultery doesn’t admit The Law of Love.

The New Testament and Adultery

In Matt 22 Christ recites an Old Testament commandment from Deuteronomy 6 during a discourse with a Pharisee who asks him “which is the great commandment in the Torah?”…

Jesus answered: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and most important commandment. The second most important commandment is like this one. And it is, "Love others as much as you love yourself." All the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets are based on these two commandments.”

(Mat 22:37-40)

Today many Christians believe that this passage releases Christians from the obligations of Mosaic Law. Commands like this one, which Christ dictates are part of what’s often called “The Law of Christ”. The Family also believes that this passage warrants emancipation from the Mosaic Law and the Old Testament prohibition of adultery. But the Law of Love has had little to say about Christ and the New Testament’s own condemnation and prohibitions of adultery and fornication which are no less clear and numerous that those of the Old Testament. Most Christians who don’t adhere to the Mosaic Laws see the numerous commands and admonitions throughout the New Testament as part of a new code which Christians are obligated to obey. Family theology however, apparently only confesses the code in Matt 22:37-40, treating the many other moral injunctions throughout the New Testament as optional instructions; at least, this approach is what is necessary for The Law of Love to be reconciled with the New Testament.

In this post I won’t make use of the Mosaic Law or any Old Testament citations in my argument. I’ll appeal only to the New Testament and argue that it isn’t enough for The Law of Love to disregard the moral commands of the Old Testament because the New Testament is no more permissive of extramarital sex. A Christian seeking to justify extramarital sex should find a way to negate all of the moral commands regarding sex that are in the Bible because they positively prohibit extramarital sex. Here are some of the New Testament passages that have shaped Christian sexuality…

“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. And if thy right eye offends thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”

(Mat 5:27-29)

Though we have often treated the Law of Christ as a liberal ethic, here Christ offers a more restrictive exposition of the Seventh Commandment (thou shalt not commit adultery) than even the Pharisees observed. In this passage Christ not only endorses the 7^th commandment but indicates the exacting degree to which the commandment is meant to be applied.

“They have done evil, and they will be rewarded with evil. They think it is fun to have wild parties during the day. They are immoral, and the meals they eat with you are spoiled by the shameful and selfish way they carry on. All they think about is having sex with someone else's husband or wife. There is no end to their wicked deeds.” (2Pe 2:13-14a)

Peter warns against a wicked culture who, among their many offenses, constantly desire to commit adultery; he gives an account of their character and conduct as a corrupt offense to God.

“I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman."

(Mat 19:9)

Christ, who renounces divorce earlier in the chapter, admits divorce only in the case that a spouse has not been sexually monogamous suggesting the severity of the offense of adultery.

“ For from the inside, from your heart, come the evil ideas which lead you to do immoral things, to rob, kill, commit adultery, be greedy, and do all sorts of evil things; deceit, indecency, jealousy, slander, pride, and folly---“

(Mar 7:21-22)

Christ lists adultery among a number of acts which He declares to be immoral.

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” (1Co 6:9-10,18)

What is known about Paul and 1^st century Judaism indicates that he certainly regarded extramarital sex as an immoral act; we can safely apply his admonitions regarding sexual immorality to extramarital sex.

These are just a few of the many passages in the New Testament that give an indication of the way that Christ and His apostles felt about extramarital sex. Although there were clearly a number of laws from the Mosaic Covenant which were not honored by Christ and His apostles, and although the Christians ceased to stone offenders, there was a definite solidarity between the Mosaic Jews and the early church Christians when it came to the moral status of extramarital sex. The New Testament is unmistakably clear in its prohibition of extramarital sex, and this is why the greater Christian church has never admitted a doctrine which permits extramarital sex. To mistake the Bible’s position on extramarital sex is a very difficult mistake to make and one which few Christians have made. It isn’t as if The Families doctrine is so advanced and difficult that nobody else could have thought of it. The argument that the Law of Love makes for extramarital sex is very basic and simple (to a fault); if you can read, then you understand it. So if this doctrine were true, then surely someone else would have thought of it during the two thousand years since the new covenant went into effect.

In order to morally justify extramarital sex it’s necessary to abandon the moral commands of both the Old and New Testaments. Extramarital sex can rightly be called a non-Christian practice in that it can’t be reconciled with any part of the Bible--the essential Christian manifesto. For Christians to justify extramarital sex it is necessary to disregard everything that the Bible has said about sex and marriage. Only by this most radical revision and reinvention of Christian sexuality and marriage is it possible to admit extramarital sex. The Law of Love’s permission of extramarital sex relies completely on extra-biblical revelation that contradicts the Bible, its authors, and the Christian tradition. Christianity and the Law of Love’s extramarital sex doctrine are mutually exclusive doctrines. A person who wants to believe The Law of Love needs to find another way to assert it; the Law of Love’s doctrine of extra-marital sex is not a Biblical doctrine, and therefore, not a Christian doctrine either.

Works Cited

Lewis , C.S.. Mere Christianity . New York , NY.: Harper Collins, 2009.

Chesterton, G.K.. Orthodoxy. San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 1995.

Zerby, Karen. Applying the Law of Love. 2010.

The Christian Model for Marriage LOL1

2010-05-30T08:36:00.000-07:00

A Practical Argument Against Extra Marital Sex

The institution of marriage, which has for thousands of years remained remarkably consistent, is, in fact, a Judeo-Christian practice, that is, God invented it. It isn’t just a social convention or historical development but an institution that God Himself engineered. Today we can read about the inception of human marriage in Genesis 2 where God breathes life into the first groom and bride. And then, in the final verses of the chapter we find an indication of Gods intent for marriage. “They shall become one flesh”, this wasn’t just an expression of God's sentimentality, it was also a symbol of the intended permanence of this sacred promise between a man, woman, and God. Marriage isn't merely a symbolic act or statement about mutual love between a man and woman, but also a kind of contract, a holy covenant between human beings and their creator: the voluntary binding together of a man and woman for life before God.

In this post I’m not going to delve into the reasons why God chose to model marriage in this way beyond mention of the negative impact that divorce has on children. I’ll try to complete the picture in another post when I discuss Gods model for society. What’s important at this point is that we draw the implication about divorce.

“[Christians] regard divorce as something like cutting up a living body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a desperate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like having both your legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership…” (Lewis)

Here C.S. Lewis extends the Genesis analogy of a husband and wife as a single organism to describe the tragedy of divorce. Divorce is not only a devastating experience for husbands, wives, and children, but also an unnatural phenomenon which contradicts the nature of marriage as well as the intended function of creation. Any time a couple divorces they’re effectively violating a contract and breaking a holy vow that they made with God whose term was “until death do us part”. Also, it’s unnatural because society is a system which God created, and marriage, as I will explain in further detail in another post, is an integral part of that human social system.

The Bible is not lacking in clarity about the moral status of divorce or about God’s feelings on the matter. In Malachi 2, God, in first person format, says that He hates divorce…

^"15 Didn’t the Lord make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his. And what does he want? Godly children from your union. “I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel," (Malachi)

In Mat 19 Jesus refers back to Genesis when asked if divorce is permissible and adds:

“What God has joined together let no one separate”. (Matt)
⁸ Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. ⁹ And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.” (Matt)

In the above passage Jesus’ historical account for the permission of divorce treats it as a kind of social moral defect.
The point that I’m making about divorce is only for the purpose of establishing a Christian model for marriage. I wish I didn’t have to bring it up at all but it is necessary for my argument.

Next it follows that the duty of every married person is to order their lives in such a way as to keep their marital relationship out of risk of divorce. Obviously a person who is married must behave in particular ways. A spouse should try to avoid behavior that strains a marital relationship. These aren’t just nice things to do as a spouse they are essentially part of what it means to be married. These things are what it means to take your vows seriously. The Christian model for marriage entails not divorcing, but “not divorcing” amounts to more than just something that you must avoid doing. The Christian model for marriage is inherently a prescription for life, life that is compatible with marriage and that prevents divorce. And let me make it clear that divorce isn’t something that is primarily chosen by a husband and wife but something which is affected by the state of a marital relationship. In other words divorce isn’t something a couple does autonomously but something that happens to them when things have gone wrong.

So, in light of this moral duty to preserve marriage, prevent divorce, and keep your marital vows where does the extra marital sex practice of The Law of Love fit? The doctrine of the Law of Love asserts that extra marital sex, when properly practiced, is not only harmless to a marriage but actually beneficial. This is quite a bold claim, especially when the majority of the world throughout history—and Christians in particular, have said quite the opposite about extra marital sex. How can we know that this fabulous claim is true? How can we know that extra marital sex as per the Law of Love is compatible with God’s design and the Christian model for marriage? The Bible certainly doesn’t give us any indication of this; in fact, as I’ll discuss in a later post, the Bible consistently says the opposite about extra-marital sex: that it’s immoral and destructive, and we are certainly no more comforted by the psychologists and sociologists.

In The Family people often claim to know by experience that it works. The way that I’ve most often heard the doctrine supported is by testimony. A testimony that goes something like this: “I know the Law of Love works; I have personally experienced its success”. As compelling as a testimony can be, you may hope for something more substantial before putting your marriage at risk to one of the most common causes of divorce--and by the way, If this kind of hesitance sounds like doubt, don’t worry, this isn’t the kind of doubt that you need to worry about. Prudence is another name for this kind of doubt, and if you never experience it then you might be in danger of being a fool.

The problem with personal testimony is that it often isn’t worth much. Every day people in pharmaceutical drug trials testify to symptoms of placebos. Brilliant scientists often struggle to keep their own personal attachments to some mostly irrelevant theory from dictating their observation. We would be right to be suspicious of observational selection where the outcome of a person’s observation may just happen to suit some of their most powerful biological impulses and passions.

Clearly we need a better way of verifying the practical effect of this doctrine before believing it if we are going to honor our vows and protect our marriages. (Keep in mind that this argument is exclusively practical. There are other factors that should feature in your consideration, many of these will feature in other posts but for now I’m only concerned with the way that this doctrine functions with respect to the Biblical model for marriage).

One way in which we can more accurately test this doctrine is by examining the overall health of marriages in The Family during the history of this doctrine’s practice. Have divorces and separations been rare? Are single mothers and fathers a rare phenomenon in The Family? Are many of the FGA’s still married for the first time? Are young SGA marriages strong and stable?

Don’t forget that the doctrine of The Law of Love boasts its ability to improve marriages. Also keep in mind that The Family is a Christian community. All other things being equal, we ought to be able to expect better marital health and stability in Family marriages than in other churches and Christian communities. Without any available statistical data I leave the observation to you. But frankly, I for one would be surprised if, on average, TFI marriages are even as successful as secular American ones. In my experience there are few FGA’s who can call their present wife the first and young marriages seem to be springing up and shattering at the same sad rate.

I don’t have the formal statistics to assert for a fact that in The Family during the period of time in which extra-marital sex as per the Law of Love has been practiced, marriages have failed more often than the American average. However I think it’s very safe to say that TFI marriages do fail too often, and I strongly suspect that any formal statistics would favor my argument and show a serious problem. So one sound conclusion that we can draw is that if the Law of Love was meant to strengthen marriages, then either it has been quite ineffective or else it hasn’t been practiced. Either way, too many Family marriages are not being saved by The Law of Love’s extra-marital sex.

If we can agree that there is a problem, then we now need to think hard about how to correct it. Our marriage vows aren’t pinky promises; they’re sacred oaths that we’ve made to God. Maybe it would be wise now to consider the reasons why most of the world has frowned upon extra marital sex, why Christians--wise men and women of God today and those who came before us have renounced it. It should be mentioned that our practice of extra marital sex, our ideas about love, and our interpretation of Matt 22:37-40 is a great departure from the wisdom of virtually all of Christendom from times past and present. And it isn’t as if any of the pieces which we have construed to form this doctrine are new or uniquely available to us. They have been available to all Christians but only we have produced this unique doctrine and interpretation (according to some sources also an early Gnostic sect called the Nicolaitans [of whom God was apparently not very fond Rev. 2:6, 15]).

"The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined. The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It means that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again." (Lewis)
It’s prudent to consider the possibility that the world has been right about extra marital sex, and that a possible cause of the ill health of TFI marriage is this most obvious suspect. If divorce is a problem in The Family then we have no right to continue practicing such an inherently risky doctrine.

It’s my impression that marriage has not been treated as the sacred and holy covenant that it is. Why else would we continue to place our marriages at such great risk? Are we really treating our marriages as holy covenants with our creator? Are the benefits—whatever they are—of practicing this doctrine really important and meaningful enough to place such a risk upon our marriages and upon our families? Does this behavior help to secure marriage? Is this kind of behavior prescribed by the nature of Christian marriage?

The conclusion of this practical argument is that extra marital sex inherently contradicts the nature and intended function of marriage if it tends to damage a relationship or put it at risk of divorce. I’ve also proposed that there is a pandemic divorce problem in The Family and that this is most likely due to our practice of extra marital sex. Fidelity to God, to our families, and to our marital vows is of far greater importance than this doctrine of extra marital sex and so it should be abandoned if it causes marriage problems or if marriage problems are prevalent in The Family.

The inductive argument can be put in point form like this:

1. Christian marriage is a holy and sacred vow between God and a man and woman to stay together, and so to not divorce.
2. Keeping such vows entails acting in ways which secure and strengthen marriage and entails avoiding other acts which compromise a marriage and cause divorce.
3. There is good reason to believe that extra marital sex is harmful to marriages.
4. There is good reason to believe that extra marital sex has harmed TFI marriages. Therefore we have good reason to believe that extra marital sex contradicts the purpose of marriage.
5. Marriage is more important than extra marital sex.
6. Therefore extra marital sex should not be practiced.

In my next post I’m going to examine the way that we have tried to reconcile this doctrine with the Christian doctrines about sex and marriage in the Bible.

Thanks for reading and I do appreciate comments and contributions of every opinion. I only ask that you please express yourself respectfully and politely. Thank you

Citations
Lewis , C.S.. Mere Christianity . New York , NY.: Harper Collins, 2009.
Malachi 2:15-16, New International Version
Matthew 19:6, New International Version
Matthew 19:8-9, New International Version

Sex Marriage and Christianity

2010-05-19T18:57:00.000-07:00

First on the list of issues that I proposed to write about in my last post was sex and marriage. True to my word, this post will be an introduction to a series of posts that I'm working on which talk about these issues.

As a young man I have been naturally interested in the discussion of sex and marriage, and as I've grown older and more Christian I've become particularly interested in the sociology and ethics of sex.

The Family's doctrine of The Law of Love sparked special interest in me about three years ago while I was still in the Family and when I finally made an effort to understand it clearly.

For over a year I studied and wrestled with this doctrine trying to understand how it reconciled itself with the Bible. During that time I read the entire "Law of Love" series along with most of the other relevant TFI literature that I could get my hands on. I also studied the Bible and the biblical model for marriage and sex as well as some relevant non-TFI Christian books. I ultimately compiled my research in an 8000 word essay which will provide the material for the preceding series of posts.

Why bring it up?

Some of my friends who are in The Family may find my casual blogging about their inherently controversial doctrine to be unfair or uncharitable. Maybe some of you will say that an open blog is no place to talk about such sensitive issues. So at the risk of offending my friends or even personal family members why would I venture to raise such a discussion?

First, for whatever it's worth, I want to say that this is nothing personal. That is, I'm not actually interested in discussing the Family at present. My topic of discussion is sex, marriage, and society. With respect to this subject, by far the most interesting discussion available to me presently is about the Law of Love. But more importantly the Law of Love is the most important discussion available to me because of its potential effects on TFI culture as well as others.

Also, I disagree with the premise that religious doctrines are personal affairs. Christianity is a corporation in which I am a shareholder. There's a sense in which we are (or ought to be) held accountable to other Christians for the way in which we believe and act. Christianity isn't anyones personal religion and we're not at liberty to privately do with Christianity whatever pleases us. So although I'm no longer in The Family I still have an interest in the way that my religion and God are represented to people. Family doctrines as well as those from any other denomination are open for discussion and even criticism. This is the healthy, natural, and biblical approach to revelation and doctrine.

I also believe in freedom of inquiry and that it's good and necessary to encourage prudent followership in cohesive religious groups where good things like unity and camaraderie can lend to bad things like groupthink without the proper perspective. The proper perspective is that fair scrutiny of leadership is a healthy and godly thing. Only God deserves the unqualified trust of His people and so to give this kind of trust to men and women is wrong and idolatrous.

Having said all of that, I hope to have a cordial and fair discussion. I hope that anyone who disagrees with me wont feel too intimidated to share their views and arguments because I value contrary opinions. Lets remember that the truth ought to be the object of argument, so no matter how you view this issue there is a sense in which we are all on the same side.

The first post will be up in about a week so stay tuned.

P.S. Some of you have complained about my long winded posts. My heart breaks for those of you who can't sit still long enough to read a few paragraphs so I'll be providing narrations in mp3 format along with the posts in text.

"Truth springs from argument amongst friends." -David Hume

I'm Back

2010-05-17T02:14:00.000-07:00

Tonight, after about 8 months as a member of Facebook, I manned up and quit facebook. Despite Facebook's numerous perceived advantages I realize that I really miss blogging. Facebook is too noisy for me and I miss the depth and person style of the blog.

So I'll be updating Nashville more often; I have a list of issues that I want to discuss that weren't appropriate or well suited for Facebook, topics like: sex and marriage, denominations and doctrines of Christianity, The Family and sociological issues regarding it, The Episcopal Church, the family unit, etc. Not to mention updates about my family and personal life. And if you're lucky Clara may even re-spark an interest and add her many charming contributions. Stay tuned and thanks for reading. :)

"Man is always something worse or something better than an animal; and a mere argument from animal perfection never touches him at all. Thus, in sex no animal is either chivalrous or obscene. And thus no animal invented anything so bad as drunkeness - or so good as drink" -Chesterton

The Man on the Bicycle

2010-03-13T20:29:00.000-08:00

The brighter stars are still decorating the sky; a gradient of dawn colors are taking the atmosphere and the dark portion of the moon is vanishing. The celestial sphere flaunts her white gold thumbnail without modesty for a little while before the real trophy takes the stage. Some terrestrial objects make use of the scarce light--a stop sign, the gnarly knuckles of some bare ghost trees, the red concrete curb at the entrance of the parking lot. It's quieter than the night usually is here, all the actors stand still, the bugs stop their commotion, the wind pauses his business, even the clouds wait motionlessly in a semicircular position around the horizon during the ceremony. The reverential silence is infringed by a faint, repetitive, whirring, and clicking sound. Then the faint chatter produces it's subject: it's the man on the bicycle--right on time. There he goes--I wonder if he'll be singing today--I guess It isn't exactly his routine, I've only hear him sing once. I wonder if he stops singing when he passes by me--I suspect that he does. Some of flashing lights are off this morning--maybe he's celebrating Saturday. I wonder if he's cold, I wonder if he hates riding his bike every morning. I suspect that there is something to be appreciated in struggle, some special significance. I wonder if it's right to pity people who suffer and struggle so much--maybe they should pity us who don't.

The bicyclist shifts his gear and stands on his pedals while he struggles to cycle slowly up the hill. 5:54--six more minutes. He's gone. It's quiet again.

Christianity Violence, and Metal.

2010-02-21T22:06:00.000-08:00

Over the last couple of years a number of my friends and family members have raised a very reasonable and (I think) significant question with regard to my appreciation for metal music and to my former membership in a "Christian metal" band.

The question is: Isn't metal music, by it's aggressive and even violent nature, a sort of expression and articulation of aggression and even violence? Isn't this sort of celebration of violence inherently antithetical to your Christian world view? Isn't this the kind of thing which real Christians aught not to promote and enjoy?

Good questions all, and although some of you may expect that I will deny that metal is inherently a celebration of aggression and violence, I actually won't deny that this is true in most cases regarding metal music. I can't help but think that if a metal song isn't at least aggressive, then it probably isn't really metal. Aggression does seem to be an important ingredient for a good metalfish sandwich.

So If I accept that metal is at least inherently aggressive, then as a Christian, how can I justify appreciating it?

First I'd like to challenge the assumption that Christianity is an inherently pacifistic religion.
Anyone who has read the Bible through has probably been left with some unease about the alarming amount of violence accounted therein. The Biblical Christan who hopes to deny the concept of holy violence will be forced to arbitrarily deny a sizable chunk of the Bible itself.

In Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis wrote:

"The idea of the knight--the Christian in arms for the defense of a good cause--is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken."

If anyone would like to know who it is in the Christian gospel that affirms violence and aggression, I will say that you need look no further than The Almighty himself. Many of the central theological tenets of the Christian religion involve a God of holy wrath, an all consuming fire, a terrifying righteous indignation.

This sort non-deliberated, authoritative, just, and swift divine violence is a foreign and terrifying concept to us in the democratic west, and it has often been a controversial fact of our religion, but it is a fact none-the-less.

Furthermore-- and I'm afraid that in our world, when our rightfully high expectations of the church have often been betrayed by the unjust violence of some so-called Christians-- my next point may not be any more popular, but in the Bible there have also been many cases in which men have justly acted in violence on God's behalf.

Here I am in no way suggesting that the ways in which the Christian church has acted violently at times past in European history were morally correct, or that the use of corrective violent force in a Christian context is always (or even often) correct. This certainly isn't the rule and it never has been. I also want to make it clear that I don't imagine myself in any way qualified to lay down a criterion that decides which acts of violence are morally correct and which are not, but I will say that the kinds of unqualified statements which Christians sometimes make about violence, in which all violence is categorically renounced are false. For instance, the popular belief that God hates war is certainly not in agreement with a huge swath of the Bible.

Strict pacifism is certainly not a Christian tenet. Although I do suspect that pacifism most often is "the most excellent way" to act in our present societies and governments as Jesus' generally did. But there are times when a situation's demands are such that pacifism can not be a morally correct response-- as Jesus also demonstrated. And to those who would by virtuous skepticism request that I support this assertion (the violent Jesus) with citations, let me draw your attention to the accounts in the gospel when, whip in hand and in righteous indignation, Jesus violently evicts the Temple merchants : (Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15-16, Luke 19:45, John 2:15.); or when He caused the death, by drowning, of a herd of swine by casting demons into them (Matthew 8:32, Mark 5:13, Luke 8:33). He also destroyed a fig tree for not having fruit during a time in which no fig tree offered figs (not fig season) (Matthew 21:18-21, Mark 11:13-14).

In summary: Sometimes violence is morally correct, and sometimes situations are such that pacifism would be morally wrong, and Christianity is by no means a strictly pacifistic religion.

Now you might be thinking, "okay, I can concede that sometimes violence is acceptable and appropriate, but when is it acceptable to celebrate such an undesirable course of action? Violence is not a thing that any Christian should take pleasure in, and it's clear that Jesus didn't take pleasure in His uses of it. So how is metal okay?"

In a sense I heartily agree with this sentiment. No Christian should ever take pleasure in, or celebrate harming another person or animal. Here I will even go as far as to suggest that there is something wrong when Christians try to induce pleasure or satisfaction in fantasizing about Satan's mutilation. It can't see how it could be wholesome to try to take such pleasure or interest in something so inherently dark as the invoked pleasure and celebration of the harm done to the object of some violence real or imagined. However, the kind of celebration that I want to describe is the exact opposite of this kind.

To make my case I want to demonstrate how the kind of celebration that I'm justifying is naturally evocative to all of us. The kind of righteous violence which I believe is rightly celebrated by good Christian metal is the kind we all celebrate when the hero takes his stand against the oppressor of the weak, against the ones who steal the purity and the lives of the innocent. When we celebrate his strength, prowess, and supremacy as he justly crushes his despicable foe we don't celebrate death, but liberation, we don't celebrate destruction, but the triumph of justice and goodness. We all celebrate this kind of violence. Movies are enormously successful appealing to this theme. I also think that the popularity of sports in most cultures may be a type and shadow of this same appeal.

The Christians believe that this celebration of the hero is an analogy of the celebration of Christ's powerful victory of death and evil, and the supreme authority of an All Consuming Fire Who will correct the fallen state of this world by force. His irresistible justice will not be escaped. He will champion the weak and oppressed and His uncontested strength will protect the innocent.

This perfect violence is the kind that I wholeheartedly celebrate, and I believe that in this context we are right to take pleasure in aggression. Christian metal, to me, is also a type and shadow of this perfect violence, but we can see how different it is to celebrate the battle in which good prevails against wickedness than to celebrate mutilation for its own sake.

In closing it seems appropriate that I should leave you with a recommendation to sink your eardrums into and I just so happen to have a couple of great songs that demonstrate what I've called perfect violence. Actually, I have not one, but two terrifico metalfish sandwiches to share with you. The first is a song which seems to have been an inspiration for this post. It's called "All Consuming Fire" and I've imbedded the video below, but you can go to YouTube if you'd like to see the official M.V. (nothing special in my humble opinion). The second is (predictably) a dedication from my old band, it's a great song which Mark Osborn wrote and I believe it demonstrates the Christian soldier concept quite well; the song is called "The Battlefield". Click on the link and select the song from the Myspace player. Enjoy.

September 28th

2009-09-28T12:16:00.000-07:00

Today is Jason's 24th birthday. He is such a man! :) I can't imagine living my life with anyone else, not only cause I haven't tried it, heh, but just because I know that he is the best person for me, he brings a good balance to my life.

Happy Birthday Pooch! I love you and am so lucky to have ended up with someone as smart, talented, and sweet as you.

On another note,
For all those of you who don't know, Jason, Julie and I have moved to Austin, where we will begin the next chapter of our lives.
The future is still uncertain, but we are excited about what life will bring our way. We would have loved to call you all personally to tell you, but there are just too many of you :). I will, however, try to call as many of you as possible in the next couple of days.
We will continue to post on this blog as well as Facebook, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be even less often than it has been so far.

Love you all!

Love Your God With All Your Mind

2009-09-06T14:31:00.000-07:00

Read this book friends.

New Tunes!

2009-08-30T13:45:00.000-07:00

Check out our four new releases here.

Going on tour

2009-08-24T19:58:00.000-07:00

In less than two weeks six fellas and I will hit the road for Portland where we will begin the "Tour Du Jour" as Let the Dead (Laisse Les Morts). We'll be touring the western coast, rocking the socks off of every foolish town in our way.

Remember our cause in your most pious prayers friends, courage alone will not save us. Check out the Space if you fear that your town may be in the high risk zone, or just for a visit. We'll have a merch page on the site soon, but if you can't wait to buy a t-shirt, sticker, or to download new releases give me a comment and I'll harass Dan a little to make sure that you get what you need.

P.S. This tour is for the naysayers. You know who you are, and this tour is dedicated to you, to you and to the millions of other unimaginative, self satisfied, snobby, elitist, dreamless, fools who think that success is only measured their arbitrary definitions, by dollar symbols, and decimal points, or by becoming the paradigm adults that they are. May we write a million lousy songs, spend every dollar and every minute of our lives only to die broken hearted failures before conforming to your lifeless, small, and dry expectations.

Let The Dead

2009-08-03T19:41:00.000-07:00

Photo's from our last show courtesy of Heidi Paone.

Scientific Progress

2009-07-31T09:56:00.000-07:00

I want to thank the fourteen anonymous people who participated in my poll.

For those of you who didn't notice, I have been conducting a poll to determine the comparitive value of various genders.

The results indicate that men are better than women and hermaphrodites, and that women are better than hermaphrodites.

Out of fourteen votes men recieved seven, women received three, and hermaphrodites (herms) received two. Pretty conclusive right? I love discovery.

Our rascal's 2nd Bday!

2009-07-24T10:43:00.000-07:00

Our Julie turned 2! She is such a fun, energetic, loving little girl. She makes our lifes very exciting.
We had a little party for her at the park. She had a great time playing with her friends and swimming in the river.
When it came time to open her presents she fell off the bench and got a bump on her forehead (the exact same thing happened to her on her 1st birthday), she cried but we managed to distract her with her presents which she loved. Thanks so much to everyone who came and made her day special, as well as for all the gifts, she was so happy and for the next couple nights she kept waking up in the middle of the night talking about her birthday.

I am one happy mommy, I never imagined how fun having a little girl could be. I couldn't have asked for more. I can't believe how fast she's grown and how much a child can learn in so little time. I have definetly learned a lot in the process too and hope to continue learning.

I'll leave you with some photos taken on the day of her birthday. She loves bugs, insects and animals so we chose to get her a ladybug cake.

p.s in case you are wondering, I didn't make the cake :) If you know me you know that I am NOT an artist in any way shape or form, a friend in Austin made it for us and it turned out just how we wanted it!

the cake

happy family cute Winston

Julie trying to climb wearing her new princess shoes
Tina and her cub

Julie and Kaylee enjoying the little pony
opening presents!
and more
princess shoes
Grandma Lily and Kori
cousins playing
The guys attempting to attack us with water balloons

Liz and cute Jolene
My little bun having fun
Lily and Julie playing
Tina and Jolene ( I love the face she's making)
more fun
Marky having a BLAST at the park :)
Kaylee looking adorable
hottie!
Laurance
daddy Rick and Laurance again

I am only posting this one to show you how happy I was :) inspite of how I look
cousins
hehe, I love the expression on their faces
Rosie and Laurance toobing in the river

For those of you who haven't already seen it on FB....

Faux Principles

2009-07-18T19:25:00.000-07:00

As a worldview feature, acceptance is becoming one of the most popular. Pan-acceptance of ideologies and belief systems without regard to their validity is a very agreeable, diplomatic, and popular position to assume. Unfortunately, in the interest of actually knowing or verifying anything, the all-accepting approach must be rejected. The worldviews which attempt to fairly reconcile all of the contrary beliefs of the world inevitably do so by the employment of nonsense, rubber rulers, inconsistencies, absurdities, and in the end, even the most liberal and agreeable worldview must, for the sake it's own existence often admit that some ideas must be false.

So emerges the inevitable fact that truth is exclusive. Among thousands of competing ideologies there are many which must be false, and two claims which contradict each other can't both be true. When you have come to establish, as truth, a particular explanation of some facts, in so doing, you have rejected all other possible explanations.

The way that pan-acceptance commonly works as a worldview is by allowing opposing beliefs to coexist not only in the world, but in ones own head. It takes a general disinterest in actual facts, or a foggy arbitrary idea that within some fields of study there are no facts to be known, and so attempts to define anything about those fields are the job of a quack. Of course, a person who states as definite fact a fact which itself governs a field of study in which there are no definite facts is, in fact, a quack.

The model for a politically correct thinker is really a person who turns a blind eye to his own intellectual corruption. The stuffy man who critically orders his thoughts and ideas is very likely to disagree with someone. The conclusion is that ideologies are more appreciated when they are fake. The man who says he is a Christian will be far more popular than the man who behaves as a true Christian, or Atheist, or whatever else.

Unlike belief held because of a particular association, or believed by authority, true honest belief necessarily manifests itself in ones actions. So, if an honest, structured belief system is so exclusive and, as a result, so unpopular, how much more distasteful are actions which are motivated by an honest exclusive belief system.

Perhaps this is why Jesus said to despair when everyone think highly of you (because you are probably a fake, or a coward).

Now, surely the politically correct, pan-accepting worldview has enough merit in its sensitivity, and by the way its so heavily supported and endorsed to allow a pan-inclusive thinker to be confidence in what he does. So, if you have not meddled in the stuffy enterprise of intellectual honesty why not acknowledge and take pride your half baked ideals. If you are ashamed of them stop being lazy and deluded; take a stab at some real learning and believing, but if not, then stop fraudulently meddling in the business of honest thinkers.

Baby laughs

2009-07-18T16:25:00.000-07:00

I have to post this video, it's too cute.
Julie's birthday photos are coming up, stay tunned!

She laughed like that for about 5 minutes, her face would get all red from laughing too hard. It was so adorable!

A Tribute to Martin Luther

2009-07-11T21:19:00.000-07:00

I think we owe the man some serious respect. Apart from the founding of the protestant reformation, and his contributions to Christianity I think we need to acknowledge his courage. The man had nerve. Lets try to imagine what it must have been like to publically challenge the Catholic church. The same Church which politically dominated most of europe and processed heretics like cheese.

Imagine that you live in Alabama during the late 1800's in a world wherein the Southern Babtist Church has the political power to act in any way they see fit: mandatory church attendance; athiests, jehovas witness', and scienteists become enemies of the state; heretics are baptised to death. Now, you have taken upon your little ol' self to see things changed. The public is full of ignorance and superstion, the church misapplies the Bible in ways which would be obvious to everyone if they actually read the book. So you decide to take potshots at the errant doctrines of the church, writing scathing letters which you make available to the public. Then you wait...

To be treated as a heratic, thrown in the slammer, or excommunicated from the Church.

Cudos brother, your courage inspires me.

A post

2009-06-12T17:43:00.000-07:00

I'm back! Life has been good and God has been great.

The past couple of months have been busy. My days are filled with cooking, cleaning, doing school with Julie and trying to figure out creative ways to play inside the house because the heat outside is almost unbearable.
I end my day by listening to the radio show "Delilah" which I've found to be very soothing and destressing. Something about the combination of her voice, the music she plays, plus her outlook on life makes it a very relaxing and nice experience.

Julie is becoming such a little character; she loves dancing and is actually pretty good at moving her hips. I'll be putting a video up for you all soon.
We are preparing ourselves for the little family reunion we are having in Indiana, it's going to be a lot of fun to see everyone there, and also to get all the kids together.

On another note- I miss old friends a lot. It's weird cause I am pretty used to moving around and leaving friends behind, but this time it has been especially hard. Julie still remembers most of you from the Activated homes.

Anyway, Here are a few pictures for you!

I think we are starting to look more alike :)
Happy family
Julie refusing to smile for the camera
Kori's photo pose
Austin Park and Pizza theme park
Kori's birthday, ( all the photos with Kori in them were taken with another camera)
waking up from nap and adjusting to the world
Jolene being cute
Julie sticks her tongue out whenever she is focusing on something
They are quite the artists :)
The gang (Marky is the only one missing)
Look! I'm not smiling :)

Rough loveAndrew's mini me
SHOPPING!! ...
Uncle Dan's class
My little stinker

I am the Walrus....

2009-05-22T18:43:00.000-07:00

I feel the responsibility of providing content pressing me. Twofacebook ("Facebutt") continues whittling away at the blogging network. Now, even my most reliable collegue and co-author, Clara, seems to have abandoned Nashville for some younger, stronger social network. I'm afraid Julie and I are all you readers have left.

Speaking of "readers have left" I think it's time for a good hard look at Nashville's history. One of the best things about a blog which not even facebutt offers is history. As the 16th century historian

Gene Ericname said in his pithy little book titled The Book That Never Was "without history any future worth our expectation is a fools dream". History is one of the greatest things we have. Come mid-June Nasvhille will have been keepin' it real for almost four years.

A thing that sometimes burdens me, is the feeling that some of you may have only scratched the surface of what this site has to offer. Maybe next time you surf into Nashville and discover in dissapointment that Clara and still have not updated -instead of saying things like, "why do I still come here?"- take a moment to enjoy an oldie goldy located in the Mature Posts drop menu.

The history of Nashville is in ways analagous to a dazzling dance. A very splendid dance which has been danced for almost four years, it's wonderful, and terrible; fast, and slow; mystical, and pragmatic; glorious, and humble.

It's also like a smorgasbord of fun, challenging you to discover how much is "all you can eat". Only here the man who is trading empty trays for full ones and asking you how you would like your t-bone isn't a tired, fat, disinterested, soup slopper, it's me and Clara. We won't give you fake mashed potatoes and then lie to you when you ask about them. We won't serve ice cream sprinkles without a serving scoop and then blame grubby handed children for contaminating the food. We have a wealth of vintage foods in addition to our somewhat delinquently updated fresh off the grill bar. So don't pass on by only because you havn't eaten here before. If you give us a try I know you will be satisified.

Whadda ya say?

The End of Me

2009-04-25T22:09:00.000-07:00

My God, this formidable road is only walked alone.

These shoulders, bent by this burden, bearing these scars that ache to the bone.

Am I more than a man? Am I more than what any of them became?

Can I stand against a world that hates your name?

Flesh and bone is all I am.

Will you take all that I have?

Father I can’t continue to do this on my own,

won’t you carry me home?

Won’t you carry me home?

This world contends against me

Pulling me down.

They take pleasure in my agony.

The vulture’s eye is following.

At every step death is waiting.

Craving blood and blasphemy,

Their eyes cold dark dead and empty.

Deliver me.

Father I can’t do this on my own.

Deliver me.

Carry me home.

Flesh and bone is all that I am.

Will you take all that I have?

Father I can’t continue to do this on my own.

Won’t you carry me home?

Easter Egg Hunt

2009-04-15T18:33:00.000-07:00

Julie's first dentist visit

2009-04-07T13:20:00.000-07:00

Before...

During..

After..

All they did was check her teeth and brush them but she was not happy about it at all. And on our way home she threw up the bubble gum flavored "vitamins"they rubbed in to her gums.
It took a while for her to forgive us.

The United States and the 21st century dark age

2009-03-25T05:59:00.000-07:00

The United States and the 21st century dark age

Note, I've included this narraration of this post for your listening delight (incase you aren't that into reading jk)

"There lay a great black gulf in human history, a gulf of ignorance, of superstition, of cruelty, and of wickedness. That time we call the dark or Middle Ages”-Howard Pyle

The Dark ages were a hard and wicked time for the western world, a time of societal decay. War and disease plagued Europe; egomania, tyranny, perversion, and human weakness poisoned the leadership of illiterate and backward people.

In its popular use, the meaning of the word dark as used in “dark ages” seems to be an amalgamation of ignorance and wickedness.

Darkness is a word widely used today in a metaphorical sense to represent ignorance but many of its uses infer both ignorance and wickedness (I.E. “the dark continent” “truth as a candle in the dark”).

The relationship between ignorance and wickedness or evil has been noted throughout the centuries by people whose virtue continues to inspire us, as well as some with interests less idealistic and more pragmatic like scientists and politicians.

The ancient philosopher Plato called ignorance “the root and stem of all evil”.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said: “Nothing in the

world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

William Shakespeare said: “There is no darkness but ignorance.”

Albert Camus the French novelist said:

“The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.”

The causal correlation between ignorance and crime is obvious. A literacy report released by the National Center for Education Statistics exemplifies this claim.

• Illiteracy and crime are closely related. The Department of Justice states, "The link between academic failure and delinquency, violence, and crime is welded to reading failure." Over 70% of inmates in America's prisons cannot read above a fourth grade level

• Penal institution records show that inmates have a 16% chance of returning to prison if they receive literacy help, as opposed to 70% who receive no help. This equates to taxpayer costs of $25,000 per year per inmate and nearly doubles that amount for juvenile offenders.

In addition to its relation to immorality and inhumanity ignorance has social and economic repercussions.

• 3 out of 4 food stamp recipients perform in the two lowest literacy levels

• 90% of welfare recipients are high school dropouts

• 16 to 19 year old girls at the poverty level and below, with below average skills, are 6 times more likely to have out-of-wedlock children than their reading counterparts.

• Adults with ability to perform challenging and complex reading tasks made an average yearly salary of $50,700 in 2003. That is $28,000 more than those who lacked basic skills.

• Low literacy costs $73 million per year in terms of direct health care costs. A recent study by Pfizer put the cost much higher.

The United States leads the western world in high and elementary school education failure.

• About one in 20 U.S. adults in the is not literate in English

• 11 million Americans lack the skills to handle many everyday tasks

• 30 million adults may not be able to make sense of a simple pamphlet

Do you mistrust statistics? It’s a prudent thing to do, and perhaps there is something arbitrary about a literacy test, but these statistics don’t need to be very accurate to represent a serious problem, if the problem we face is anything like the one represented by these statistics then it is, I think, a serious problem.

A casual examination of world history warns that we ought to apply ourselves to learning.

Maybe right now you’re remembering stories you’ve heard of backward medical practices from ancient Egypt or medieval Europe; pagan rituals or traditions involving dismemberment, disembowelment or human sacrifice; bizarre criteria for identifying witches; the absurdly unjust trial, torture and execution of “witches”; ideologies of ethnic supremacy and ethnic cleansing.

The current state of many African countries is in part the product of ignorance. Brutal and savage conflicts rage; the value of human life is disregarded and diseases like aids continue to spread virtually unopposed.

The Middle Eastern conflict with its religious theme, political significance and western involvement amounts to little more than two very similar societies devoutly murdering and being murdered for the cause of wicked ignorance.

Because much of the theme of this post (In the 21st century dark age) is based in history I feel that it has been vastly understated.

I’m not qualified to do justice for the historical case against ignorance, that is to say, I’m largely ignorant of history. But I doubt that many people will fully disagree with me, so for the purpose of being able to post this essay now, I won’t do more research to properly represent this problem.

The problem of ignorance becomes more severe when the destructive power of our modern age is available, and when as a result of ignorance, “we the people”, are so easily manipulated and conditioned for cooperation.

The two term administration of President George W. Bush is a sobering reminder of the danger we face as a country and as a species. His remarks have featured in comics and humorous literature around the world but the risks we as humans faced while he governed the country with the world’s greatest military strength were not a light hearted matter. We are fortunate for a government designed with a great deal of checks and balance to disable a goofy warmonger from running off with the country, we may not always be so lucky. Our ignorance as the citizens of a democratic country has also played its role in our current economic downturn.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be” -Thomas Jefferson

The United States may be the best entertained country in the world. The content of our media industry is selected by the principle of supply and demand. It’s safe to say that what we see in our movie and television industry is what we as a culture want to see, even a reflection of who we are.

Much of the content of our American media is shameful, but in the spirit of American tolerance we wouldn’t have it any other way. So we’ll continue to enjoy our self solicited shallow, violent, egomaniacal, sexually deviant, ignorant, wicked, brain deleting vice until we can no longer do so.

But entertainment should not be a focal point in our lives when we have categorically denied ours ourselves real substance, and robbed ourselves of the rigors that facilitate understanding and wisdom; that teach us how to know truth from lies.

I didn’t want to include any more statistics in this post and most of you have probably already heard some staggering statistic about the number of hours Americans spend watching movies and T.V., or the dollar figures attached to the industry.--But if you haven’t I encourage you to do so. Maybe doing some statistics of your own hours wouldn’t hurt.

One last point on this topic I want to include is the dulling, mind fogging affect that excess amusement has on the mind. Insight about the nature of amusement can be drawn from the literal meaning of the word. The word muse means to think, or reason. When the letter a is used as a prefix it means something like un, or non. In the case of amuse, the word literally means to, “not think” or “avert thought”.

So what we need to ask ourselves is what will come of our ignorance? What will happen if we keep our eyes closed? History tells us that we are in trouble; a dark age is coming. We need to stop scoffing at intelligence. It’s time to ditch our pigheaded inhibitions about learning. We can’t continue to be content with our simple ideas and opinions. The Bible says; “Leave your simple ways and you will live; walk in the way of understanding” Prov 9:6 . We could stand to be a little humbler about what we do know, and be more eager to learn. One of the reasons why ignorance is so successful in its occupation is that it thinks itself sufficient; it doesn’t know what it doesn’t know and doesn’t care. Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance. The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.

Can a 21ST century Dark Age be averted? Ignorance isn’t bliss, its oblivion. With the future at stake can we re-align ourselves with reality? May God help us.

Phil 1:9-10 (Jer) My prayer is that your love for each other may increase more and more and never stop improving your knowledge and deepening your perception so that you can always recognize what is best. This will help you to become pure and blameless, and prepare you for the Day of Christ.

Boris

2009-03-11T15:31:00.001-07:00

Meet our new home member. His name is Boris and he is a Border Collie, he's still very young and a bit wild, but so far so good. He's very gentle with the kids and loves to snuggle. He is Julie's second best friend. She loves him a lot and my only worry is that she'll choke him to death when she hugs him.

He came in to our property alone, scared, hungry, and lost. We tried finding his owners to no avail. So he is here to stay. At first I had my questions about him as I wasn't sure I wanted to have a dog in the property and increase the kids chances of getting sick :), but he won my heart with his sweet smile and I am now officially his mommy. He loves me and for the most part I love him too, heh.
Here are some photos of the little guy with Julie .

We miss daddy...

2009-03-07T14:32:00.000-08:00

BFF...

2009-03-05T20:07:00.000-08:00

Update

2009-02-28T11:05:00.001-08:00

Things have been very busy around here, which explains our lack of posts.
Julie is growing up a lot and is such a little character, she is really taking off with her talking which is cute and also frustrating, especially at night when she wants me to sing her songs, she is very picky and won't let me sing any old song, although when she tells me which one she wants I am usually at a loss, it goes something like this....
Me "what song do you want?"
Julie "ummm, acaba"
Me: "what?"
Julie: "acaba"
Me: "Julie, I don't know what "acaba" is"
Julie:"acaba, acaba, acaba, acaba, acaba, toes"
Me: "oh!! Head and shoulders, knees and toes?
Julie: "yeah!!!"

Heh, I've realized that "acaba" is the word she uses for almost anything she doesn't know how to say. So I am hoping her vocabulary continues to expand.
She loves her daddy so much and every time she needs to go to sleep she cries for him to come give her kisses. I hope she's not too sad when he leaves this time. He will probablly be gone for about 2 months, but this is the last trip they will be making for a long time(fingers crossed).

We miss you all back at the Activated homes so much. I show Julie photos of the kids there and she always gets excited.
I hope that we can come visit soon. Hopefully before Jude gets too grown up.

I'll leave you with some photos from this last month.

For Stephanie and Connie....

2009-02-02T07:09:00.001-08:00

... here are the long awaited photos of Niki's haircut.

Recent pics...

2009-01-30T12:29:00.001-08:00

Laurence and Jolene...
Shopping...

At the Library...Lily and Julie posing for the camera

My silly girl
Story time
educating themselves..
Kori's beautiful face..
Lily's got some amazing eyes

Cool girls

Forever Like a Rock

2009-01-23T16:49:00.000-08:00

Lately I've been learning about various writing styles other than my usual non-fiction.
Here is a stab at poetry.
This poem bears a dedication to my wife. "Forever Like a Rock" may our love be as hardcore.

Forever Like a Rock
By Jason Paone

Where shadows stir, here and there, at whim,
Waiting for her lover, she wants to be with him.
In the hollow, the cold, in the red trees bed,
moon light stirs the breathless; magic wakes the dead.

She waits beside the marble stone, her beloved to reclaim;
the cold will not dissuade her, love will not be tame.
Come hell’s fury, or the life eroding clock,
true lovers wait forever, forever like a rock.

A howl in the dark, a shiver on her lips,
a memory of his hand is left upon her finger tips.
Coiled in a soiled dress of deepest, darkest, red,
a living thing abides in the garden of the dead.

The silvery, winter breeze seems to call a name,
Eleanor...she springs to feet swiftly like a flame;
Light penetrates the forest, the moon breaks through a crack;
its gleam reveals a miner with cart on mining track.

A lump in her chest turns fiery hot -
she calls his name, he answers not.
Off she flies, into the black,
to find her love, to have him back.

Panting hard, with all her voice, she calls with every breath,
running in the midnight, she'll run herself to death.
Tears of love obscure her sight - she navigates by heart -
through the trees she gathers speed, piercing like a dart.

Pushing through switches and snow, she breaks beyond the fray;
below her feet what strange deceit ,the ground has slipped away.
A terror-stricken scream resounds, the darkness tows her down,
to underworld, the mining shaft, her wild eyes of brown

Deep into the earth she falls, afraid but not alone,
she hears her lover’s voice again, smells the scent of his cologne.
He's whispering a song for her, in the shadow of her death,
she smiles one last smile, breaths a final breath.

Crashing to the ground, she released her lovers hand,
in a soiled dress, deep and red, her broken body now aband.
Light penetrates the darkness, the moon breaks through a crack;
its gleam reveals a miner with cart on mining track.

She stands beside an empty shell; her lover finally came.
Death could not dissuade her; love will not be tame.
Come hell’s fury, or the life -eroding clock,
true lovers wait forever, forever like a rock.

Welcome to Hard Times

2009-01-12T07:16:00.000-08:00

Take a virtual tour of "Hard Times" with Jason, Mark and Dan. But look out! Good times are on the way!

life

2009-01-09T12:32:00.000-08:00

This past week has been a very eventful one....Jason and I decided to wean Julie from breastfeeding because it was really hindering her sleep at night (as well as mine :)) and she was being way to clingy and demanding with me. Well I never thought I would be able to do this alone, but seeing as I did not have much of a choice since Jas is in Tennessee, I gave it a try. The first night was terrible, Julie cried all night and I felt like an evil mom depriving my baby from her dear boobie. Second night was okay, probably cause she was so exhausted. After the second night she didn't ask for nursies anymore but she demanded that I walk her around the room to sleep, which was killing my back. So I am now teaching her to fall asleep while I pat her butt and sing her songs.
It's been pretty hard as Julie is a very willful child and VERY stubborn. But I think she is finally getting the point and isn't so miserable anymore.
Another great thing is that she hasn't pooped her diaper for about a week now, yay!!she faithfully asks to go doo-doo in the potty. I am so happy about that.

Jared and Kaylee have been here with us this week and Julie has had a lot of fun playing with them. They are such sweet kids.
Here are some photos of them ....

Sleeping Beauty
Dress up time
For her Papa

Great looking teeth

Jolene is a little chubby angel
Julie loves this Dora blankie (thanks Paula)

Kori playing outside
The guys giving me their best smile

playing Risk
being silly
Cute girls (yes, Julie has a black eye)
Snuggle time with daddy
Story time

Congratulations!

2009-01-06T20:46:00.000-08:00

I can't believe my brother is a daddy. Him and Stephanie had a beautiful baby boy yesterday. He looks just like Dave did when he was a baby. I am so proud of him :)
Here is the photo of the little man...

Seasons Greetings

2008-12-30T11:14:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!
I am back...with tons of photos for you all. We've been having a great Christmas season with the kids. Texas is beautiful this time of year, I love it.
Jason, Marky and Dan all came to stay with us for Christmas and it's been great having them here. Julie is so very happy to have her daddy back, I can't wait till they can come to stay.
I wanted to thank everyone that sent Christmas cards and gifts, I was very touched! I miss you all so much.
Now that we have internet I will be posting a lot more so you'll know what were up to in this side of the world.
Love you lots....

Liger

2008-12-14T15:44:00.000-08:00

Everyone thinks I'm joking about this:

Memphis Men

2008-12-11T19:22:00.000-08:00

Here are two pictures of us at our construction site here in Memphis. The picture of Mark and Dan was taken by myself from my vantage point atop my stilts, an excellent shot if I do say so myself .
In case your wondering about Dans hat, I assure you, there is a reasonable explanation for his new Oliver Twist look.
Mark is concerned about the way he looks in these photos, he wasn't to pleased about me putting them on my blog. I think he looks alright, and I suspect that he arrived at that opinion as a result of Dan's comment about him looking like a mongoloid in that first picture.
I wish I had more pictures for Clara's readership. I'll try to get more for the next post.

Children of Metal

2008-12-07T17:07:00.001-08:00

Since the dawn of time, mankind has been searching for a hero, banging rocks together and howling like dogs our ancestors began the search for the greatest style of music.
For centuries the search has continued with new genres, instruments, and advances in science. We have come ever closer to that finding of our champion. We have crossed this vast desert in search of a this promised land. Now we have found the promised land, but somewhere along the way we forgot the meaning of our quest.
Over the centuries we have forgotten the object of our search. Impostors have fogged our minds and taken the place of our true hero. In this state of confusion we have become vulnerable.
Today the confusion must end. We can all no longer stand upon this sinking middle ground. The war has begun.
Above the roar of competing sounds, above this din of subjective value and preference; from among the impostors one warrior will step forth. One magnificent genre will rise and crush the skulls of all other genres with his bare hands thus ending the oppression.
In these desperate times we must stand by the only musical genre with the strength, skill, wisdom, and leadership to bring us back to the core of ourselves. Forsaking all others, we must steel our stance in music. We must stand upon this ironclad foundation. We must forsake the foolish impostors and embrace true music. We must embrace metal (and its subgenres). We are children of metal.

Something Special, Something Superb

2008-11-21T16:37:00.000-08:00

Thomas the turtlehead tried to trip truckers, terrible thing to try, terrible.
Ulna Umpberg unwisely underestimated underpants.
Victoria vows to vanquish very visible varicose veins. Verily verily Victoria vowed. Viva vericose veins!
Walruses wildly whip whimpering white women. Why whip women? Whip Walmart workers, whip welsh whalers, whip wildabeasts, whip walls, whip windshield wipers. Why whip white women? Wish we wouldn't.

E-demption

2008-11-13T17:38:00.000-08:00

I'd like to extend a special thanks to Fairygirl69, Neo300, to Sally and Sammy Spamoron. Your weak minds are a Trojan horse for commercialism and boogers like yourselves into my inboxes .

Did you get the free prints, gift certificates, memberships, luck, merchandise, contacts, and kicks that you sold me out for?
Programs have been invented to stop the conventional spammers and scammers but who will invent a program to stop my friends.
Lucky that the devil himself hasn't seen what a tremendous opportunity you are.
In my three inboxes there are over 1000 of your e-trayals which I haven't gotten around to deleting. The volume is more than I can process. I'm being e-merged in e-gurgitation.
Take it e-z e-communitarians . The invitations are sweet but the "try try again" approach isn't always appropriate.
And no, yahoo will never close your account if you don't send this to ten peeps, but if you do send it to me, I will send a letter to collect signatures for a petition to have your account permanently canceled.
There is no such thing as a Hi5 friend!
Inspirational stories aren't inspiring when having not accessed the internet for 2 weeks I find 87 of them crowding my inbox marked with the soulless prefix "fw:" and maybe a bunch of this nonsence:
:) :) :) :) :) LOL hah ahahaha FLIPPIN HILARIOUS!!! wo hoo hoo du ha ho doh snort!

Not funny friends, not funny. This is reprehensible. To all of you who feel the same way I entreat you, stand with me one last time. The time for passiveness toward this this abuse is over.
It's time for E-demption

The plastic anniversary

2008-11-08T16:26:00.000-08:00

I am pleased to be the first to tell you all that today is Clara and my first anniversary. That is to say, we had a wedding ceremony a year ago. This however, is our least impressive stat, we've actually been legally married for 2 years now, and have been together for almost 4 years. I know what you're thinking, "four years with Jason, wow, what a soldier she is". But listen here, there is someone who has put up with "Jason" for a lot longer than the pooch, and no I'm not talking about my "squirely nave" Dan, I'm talking about me. I have been putting up with me for 23 years, thats right folks, do the math; I'm twenty three years old, therefore I have been with me for 23 years. Thats why I deserve some flippin' credit. So put your hands together for Clara and I, for having to put up with me for so long. Kudos kids, you've both done a great job.

Reason Vs Faith

2008-11-04T17:41:00.000-08:00

Reason Vs Faith

For some time I've wanted to compose a post about a point of confusion that many Christians and T.F.I members express. Many mistakenly believe that there is a conflict raging between faith and reason for the control of Christians.

No doubt most of us are familiar with the quote "reason is the enemy of faith" In this post I am going to address this phrase and ideology (this reasoning) and show you why it is wrong.
First, let’s examine the phrase. If reason is the enemy of faith, how then, does the author of the quote know so? He must either have no idea why reason is the enemy of faith, or he has betrayed is own cause by contradicting his quote and using his reasoning to cure us from ours. But for the sake of argument let’s assume that he applied no reasoning to create this quote. If this is the case then why does he believe it? What causes him to believe or vest faith in this quote if not reason? You might ask, can’t he believe it because God told him to believe it? Yes, but how does he know to believe what God says? Even belief by authority is a belief that’s rooted in reason. Reason is the cause of the author’s belief in Gods trustworthiness.

From my knowledge of God I am lead to believe that he his trustworthy.
Trustworthy God said X
Therefore I believe X

The truth about this quote is that it betrays itself by being the product of reason; also it can’t be understood or truly believed without reason. So this statement is necessarily false. Now let’s take a look from a biblical perspective to further understand why.

I'll list a few of the many verses in which the bible directly contradicts this belief.
In chapter 1 of Isaiah, during a vision God says to Isaiah "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Now surely if reason was the enemy of faith God himself wouldn’t be telling us to do it. It’s important also to note the context of this verse in which God is offering reasoning as an alternative to wickedness and punishment.

In Matthew Jesus sums up the 39 books of the old testament with a command he calls "the first and great commandment" to "love the lord your God with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your mind" Mat 22:37. This verse is part of the condensation of Gods commandments to us and tells us to love God with all of our personality. It also specifically tells us to love God with all of our minds, or all of our intellect. Clearly in this verse Jesus tells us that not only does God have a purpose for our minds but that he wants us to use our minds to the greatest degree that is possible in our love for him. What are the things that the mind does? It reasons, learns, understands, calculates, and discerns. Using these abilities while motivated by our love for God is what he has commanded us to do.

In Romans 12:2 Paul tells us to not be like the world or society, but rather to be transformed by renewing our minds. If reasoning and the other of the minds attributes were obsolete for disciples, Paul might have told us to be transformed by obedience, love, or Gods word; but Paul tells us to be transformed by renewing our minds. This further indicates that not only is there some job for the mind of a Christian, but that it is vital to the transformation that God wants for us to make.

So there it is, reason is not the enemy of faith, they aren’t competitors, but allies, having different functions which when used correctly bolster and compliment each other.
Please don’t take my word for it. Research the bible and learn it for yourself. Though I must warn you, you will be applying reason and the other functions of the mind to do so. This is a vital part of your Christian life.

“God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you, you are embarking on something which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all. But, fortunately, it works the other way round. Anyone who is honestly trying to be a Christian will soon find his intelligence being sharpened: one of the reasons why it needs no special education to be a Christian is that Christianity is an education itself. That is why an uneducated believer like bunyan was able to write a book that has astonished the whole world.” –C.S. Lewis
“The contemporary Christian mind is starved, and as a result we have small, impoverished souls.”
—J. P. Moreland
False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel.
—J. Gresham Machen
Former President of the United Nations General Assembly said:
“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”
—Mark Noll
“The Christian religion flourishes not in the darkness but in the light. Intellectual slothfulness is a quack remedy for unbelief; the true remedy is consecration of intellectual power to the service of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
—J. Gresham Machen

This is not the American dream

2008-10-24T19:10:00.001-07:00

Darnit.... what was I going to say? oh nevermind......

2008-10-20T11:41:00.000-07:00

The Educators Seminar was so great! There were about 180 people there. Julie wasn't too happy :( being around so many people made her feel very insecure and scared, so she hang on to me the entire week. My little sister came to watch her, but Julie wasn't too crazy about the idea. She would cry and say "no, no" "momy, please, mommy" heh it's so hard to leave her when she's sad like that. She finally warmed up to them on the last day.
I learned so much at the seminar and also had lots of fun with my sisters and everyone there.

Here are some photos......

We all went to a winery here in Ensenada,
it is such a beautiful place..

At the hotel

Going out for lunch, Julie was so tired...

With our Certificates

2008-10-08T18:49:00.000-07:00

I love my little bean so much. She is growing so fast, it's hard to believe that once her entire body fit in one of my arms. She now has a mind of her own and is very sneaky. I love watching her grow and learn.
She definitely has her Cancer moods, those moments of sensitivity and stubbornness , but that's part of what makes her so fun.... seeing all the different moods she's in, like when she wakes in the morning in a terrible mood and just stands there looking miserable, she gets that from me, I used to hate waking up.
I guess I never knew how much you can love these little things.

On other news..... the teachers seminar is starting this Sunday, I am very happy that I'll get to go and I am really looking forward to seeing all my sisters there.
Leigh is visiting right now . She has lots of real nice things to say about you Nat, heh. She laughs after every word she says which makes her a breath of fresh air, we were just sitting at dinner laughing our heads off at all the silly nothings she was rambling about. Some people's laughs are just contagious.
Anyway, enough talk, here are some more pictures of the little girl who's got me wrapped around her fingers.

She's a little poser

Carly Ann, isn't she so cute?

Trying to get the kids to say "cheese"....this was the closest to it :)
So little

Here is a video of my bun. This is one of her favorite songs.

Sunday, October 05

2008-10-05T19:57:00.000-07:00

Today was a great day...got to talk to my pooch, read a good book, went out with the girls for drinks, watched my beautiful Julie play outside with the kids... all in all it was a fun and relaxing free day.
Following are some photos we took today...

Beautiful Nik

I'm going to miss Stephy, sniff!

Enjoying her Michelada

again enjoying their micheladas

I always stick to margaritas :)

"cheese"

wearing her ballerina dress

my little tomboy

For daddy
XXX

Life

2008-10-02T11:16:00.000-07:00

Jason has been gone for 3 weeks now. It feels like forever. Life isn't the same without daddy around, although I am getting lots of time with my friends here before I leave which I am very happy about.
Julie is a little rascal and keeps me real busy. She loves dogs a little too much, heh. I often find her laying on the floor kissing the dog's wet nose with her equally wet mouth. I'm happy she's not scared of them like I was but it does make me nervous that every time I take my eye off her she's running after the puppy who is still learning the full extent of his strength.
Anyway, here are some photos of my little bun.

Julie and Violet being very silly

Giving me her best smile

A long border crossing . She hates the baby car seat.

Enjoying a great afternoon

Showing off her shades :)

To Jason the Albatross

2008-09-27T12:19:00.000-07:00

Happy 23d birthday pooch!!! I love you and wish I was there with you on this special day.
I hope you have a great day and know that we will celebrate here as well :)
XO

Birthday kiss from your baby

And we love youuuuu

To my sister

2008-09-25T13:18:00.000-07:00

Caro,
I pray this next year is the best one yet. You are an amazing person, with a lot of strength of character. You always give, even to your own hurt.
I love you so much and know that things will only get better.
Your four kids are lucky to have a mommy like you.
Happy Birthday!!

Water park

2008-09-20T11:10:00.000-07:00

Yesterday everyone from our home went to a water park. We had so much fun. It was a nice chilled day. This place is in the middle of nowhere so it was so quiet and peaceful. It felt like we were in a little paradise...here are some photos.

Happy Birthday...

2008-09-15T11:34:00.000-07:00

Marky, you are such a special guy. Your sweet character, selflessness and fun personality are only some of the assets you possess. You have chosen to follow God and leave your own desires aside time and again. I really look up to you for that. I know the Lord has a big reward awaiting you.
I pray this next year will bring fulfillment, excitement and success with the goals you have set for yourself.
I love you lots.