Today's Epistle

Today’s Epistle reading --

13Οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων, ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε καθὼς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα.
14εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη, οὕτως καὶ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ.
15Τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας·
16ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον,
17ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.
18Ὥστε παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (NA 8)

I have already written about today’s Gospel and the Parable of the Ten virgins with their Lamps, so today I thought I should take on the Epistle reading.

From my genealogical studies I have taken pictures of various grave-stones for my records of my genealogy.  On one was inscribed “Asleep in Jesus”.  In earlier graves and Bible entries were inscribed words in Dutch which translated meant “Asleep in the Lord”.  My son in law, who is not very religious, laughed at the silliness of such an inscription.  I tried to explain that it was an expression, not of fact, but of faith, but I don’t think I convinced him.

A while back I went to my Oncologist for a review of my case and met a woman 12 years my senior there in the waiting room.  She engaged me in conversation and reminded me that I was a Philosopher, so I should know the answer to the question: “is there life after death”.  I stumbled around a bit and answered her with something akin to “they say there is”.  She replied: “I hope not, because, frankly, I cannot stand one more day of this pain, and I want it to end”.  I was a bit shocked, but not really, because I understood what she was saying.  In some ways we don’t want to just go to sleep and await the return of the Lord, we want the pain and grief to end, and that is all we require - a finality to it all.

I know why I’m a Philosopher and not a Pastor, because I couldn’t give her the pleasant platitudes we find in today’s Epistle reading.  I’m sure there are many more capable persons than I in that endeavor to offer comfort to the dying, but I remain the Philosopher always full of questions.  But I think I find questions very comforting.   Sometimes, the right questions are more important than the platitudinous answers.  Perhaps I fit in better with the Psalmist than Paul. I cannot it seems find it in me to follow the imperative of v.18.  In the existential struggle we humans find ourselves in our daily lives to find meaning in life and what we do to live that life, perhaps we ought more to question ourselves than God, but we cannot escape the notion that: if there is a God then why….

Ultimately we are faced with the question of the meaning of being, and what one ought to do to authentically be.  These are not really just philosophical questions, but essentially very personal too.  Not everything is logical analysis, or Metaphysical speculation, but also personal and maybe high minded lunacy, yet at the same time existential.  If nothing else, the reading of some Continental Philosophers, Playwrights, and Novelists should teach us that much.  I tend to believe that the Kingdom of God is not some far off place in the sky we shall go after death and live for evermore, but following Luke’s account of Jesus teaching, the Kingdom of God is within (17:21), and that means here and now. And what we make of that ‘here and now’ is what counts.

Perhaps we should ask, not of God but of ourselves:

"What are we that we should be mindful of ourselves?"

The Greatest Game Ever Played

The Greatest Game Ever Played –

Disney Studios produced a fine film with this title, a semi-historical account of the 1913 US Open and the Story of Harry Vardon, a peasant farmer’s son from the Island of Jersey yet one of the greatest golfers of all time, and Francis Ouimet a young caddy, ditch digger’s son, who manages to qualify for and win the Open becoming Golf’s greatest ambassador.. Like fine literature, the movie is filled with metaphors. analogies, and lessons we ought to pay attention to.  There is a flashback scene in the movie where Vardon is a young lad being evicted from his home so that a group of men in black coats can build a golf course on the property.  “What’s golf?” He asks and the answer comes:  “Golf is game for gentlemen and not for the likes of you.”  The age old conflict between the Aristocrats of Society (gentlemen) and the Peasants (working class) is found throughout the movie.
  

The very name of the film is a metaphor of course, because the greatest game is not golf, as the reader knows, it is, and always will be, politics and since the rise of Democratic Republics in the Renaissance and Enlightenment eras, the conflict between the Peasantry and the Aristocracy has been dominant in that game, even as it is today.

What the Aristocrats fear the most is that they might be exposed and their power over others may be diminished.  They might even get told what it means or ought to mean to be a gentleman by the likes of Harry Vardon, a person they may have cultivated to do the winning for them. They fear that someday, somewhere a ditch-digger’s son, like Francis Ouimet, may show them up and demonstrate the failures of the aristocratic pretense by actually winning.   

When people accuse others of class warfare, it is no doubt from those who have, who are accusing those who have less or not at all, of that warfare.  But in fact we have always had class warfare.  The Aristocrats of earlier times have maintained their feudal positions despite the democratic ideals of most contemporary Republics.  Aristocrats do not earn their wealth through their own work, they earn their wealth through inheritance and ownership; they pretend that we too can become Aristocrats by hard work and education.  But can we?

Are not the educated and well educated servants to those who own and have inherited their positions and wealth?  Even government bureaucrats and representatives are servants to those who pay them for their labor, and in most cases it is not the electorate, but the aristocrats who sponsor their campaigns for office.

The working class, are just that, workers, and it matters not what they do for work whether they are an accountants or ditch-diggers workers are workers and not necessarily with their hands, though it seems the lowest of the workers work with their hands.  The so called middle class are those who work primarily with mind and not hands but still they work, for someone who is an owner. In many cases the worker doesn’t really know who the ultimate owners are, they may enjoy their yacht trip in the Mediterranean in summer and the Caribbean in winter, and keep their cash in the Caymans, or Cyprus, or both, for all we know.  There is a kind of anonymity about the Aristocracy today, and unless they are Queen or King we seldom need know whom they are. Like Dark Matter we know not what Dark Money is, but we do know the Aristocracy has a lot of it and it is everywhere.  The farmer, or rancher, who owns his farm, may think he is self-employed, but he buys his seed from someone, his equipment from someone, and sells his product to someone, and in many cases it may be the same corporation of Aristocrats who own the grain through the market and the tools of production.  He, despite his ownership of a minor piece of land, is still a peasant and may be foreclosed on at anytime by a bank who owns his debt and is in turn owned by the same corporation of Aristocrats who speculate on his production.  The same principle applies to the tradesman who must borrow to afford to purchase his materials from someone and sell it to someone who borrows from a bank to gain access to his product.

So it seems, unless we are in the owner class, we are all peasants who may be someday evicted and told that: “Politics is a game for gentlemen and not for the likes of you.”

“Armor maketh a knight, a crown a King, what are we?” 

Firearms

Firearms – 

One of my students wrote in his paper that the Constitution, confirmed by the Supreme Court, gave him the right to own a gun and shoot, perhaps kill, anyone he didn’t like.  I of course wrote him a three page reply (single spaced) in answer to his misinterpretation of the constitution and the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller. But I think that most people believe that my student is correct in his interpretation. 

So let’s look at the Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The reader should note that the amendment in question is essentially a series of clauses in one sentence separated by commas.  But in 20^th century English we might reduce those clauses to two: 1) A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, and 2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We might translate this as a conditional “Since (if) a well regulated …” (protasis), then “the right of the people…” (apodosis).  We might also interpret the middle clauses to be qualifiers and interpret the meaning of the sentence as “A well regulated militia, …,  ..., shall not be infringed.”

We often forget the protasis or antecedent clause[s] in this sentence and emphasize only the apodosis or consequent clause[s], but they go together to express the complete thought.  Until our recent political divide, most often the courts and the legislature of the various states have interpreted the “well regulated militia” to mean the National Guard the successor of the 18^th century militias.  In some cases the militia also meant the State Police of a particular state.

Now I am not against guns per se.  But I do think we need to leave our anxieties about guns to common sense.  A gun is a useful tool.  It can protect us from wild beasts, (my great, great grandmother was afraid of the howling wolves at their abode in Lake County, Indiana), it can be used as a sporting thing, like archery in terms of target shooting and skeet.   But military style weapons used in warfare should be left to the military and the militias.  If you need an AR-15 to hunt deer, you’re probably not a good shot and need more target practice. Just saying…

We restrict the sales of arms such as bazookas, flame-throwers, tanks, rocket launchers, land mines, hand grenades and other military style weapons why can’t we restrict sales of semi-automatic rifles and kits to make them fully automatic?    If we need protection from criminals who might burglarize our homes, perhaps we should look at legalizing land mines or some form of improvised explosive device.  But if you would advocate for land mines to protect your property, we would think you are nuts, yet we are perfectly willing to think you’re sane if you want an assault rifle.

I also think that anyone buying a gun rifle or other such device should be required to undergo some safety-training (be well regulated); too many people have shot themselves or have otherwise been injured for lack of safety training. In rural areas a gun might be a necessary tool, you wouldn’t want to go into the woods (forest) without one, in many cases.  You might need a rifle to protect your cattle from wolves or predator cats.  But let’s have a bit of reason when it comes to firearms. Even in the military you are trained to use your weapon safely, and in fact you learn to take it apart and keep it clean, lubricated, and usable.  The bearing of firearms should be well-regulated.

Do we want any fool to carry a firearm?  

Should we allow someone bearing a grudge against someone use his/her weapon upon whom they bear that grudge?  Surely we don’t.  But in too many cases including the most recent mass shootings the shooter bore a grudge and acted upon it.

The old saw is certainly true “what fools these mortals be!”

Sanctury

Sanctuary –

In days past the church as an institution offered sanctuary for those fleeing the “long arm of the law”.  Recently the laws of sanctuary have all but been abolished.  Yet there persists a notion common in human persons that there ought to be a sacred space for refugees to go. The US has never adopted sanctuary laws, but still many people believe that a church is such a space of safety.

The usual definitions of sanctuary are:

1:a consecrated place: such as

  a :the ancient Hebrew temple at Jerusalem or its holy of holies

b (1) :the most sacred part of a religious building (such as the part of a Christian church in      which the altar is placed)

   (2) :the room in which general worship services are held

   (3) :a place (such as a church or a temple) for worship

2 a (1) :a place of refuge and protection

      (2) :a refuge for wildlife where predators are controlled and hunting is illegal

   b :the immunity from law attached to a sanctuary

Today sanctuary is associated with the protection of immigrants from deportation.  In our nation’s past many churches and synagogues have been involved in sanctuary movements such as the underground movement for those fleeing slavery.  In Canada many Anglican, Lutheran, and United churches have specific rules about sanctuary.  Some churches deny the authorities the power to arrest an individual until such time as one their members, who is legally empowered to do so, is willing to pro bono defend the one to be arrested.  The modern sanctuary movement began in Tucson, Arizona with a Presbyterian Church there.

While we are willing to grant safe spaces to college students where they do not have to hear anything which contradicts their view of the world, we seem unwilling to accept the notion that a church is a sacred and safe space.  The recent mass shootings in churches confirm this attitude.  Guns are an instrument of power to those who feel empowered to assert their judgment on things over the peace and tranquility of a safe space – sanctuary.  The philosopher in me feels a strong moral outrage over such heinous acts as to kill those involved in worship. 

 

Where is our moral compass today?

Is there not some space in which none but God has power?