Offense of the Cross

We would rather circumcise ourselves, we would rather do penance, we would rather crawl on our knees through the desert beating ourselves than acknowledge the offense of the cross.

-D. Williams

I heard this in church this morning and was stunned. I'm accustomed to hearing "the offense of the cross" being used (and abused) by evangelists as an excuse for all evangelical offensiveness. I have this vague impression of the offense of the cross as "the offense of the righteous condemning sinners." But the context is quite different:

Galatians 5:¹¹Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

The context says that the offense of the cross is that righteousness - obeying the law - is worse than useless. The offense of the cross is that we don't need to mess with these things, because we don't save ourselves. In fact, we can't save ourselves. The offense of the cross is its affront to our dignity and pride - our good deeds aren't necessary.

So when Mr. Williams (no, not a famous writer/thinker, just a guy in my Sunday School class) spoke up, it just put things in perspective. I would rather do just about any kind of penance rather than face the fact that I have to put my trust in God, and not my righteousness. Still... kinda refreshing, to be able to cancel my plans for the flagellant retreat. It was for freedom that Christ set us free. :)

But to avoid these paradoxes...

I love history and old literature. They seem to me more relevant to daily life than many another topic. For instance, reading Democritus again (and I must offer apologies to Burton, whose first name is Robert not Richard), I'm running across the Great Debate of Science vs. the Bible.

Our author (who shall now be BB for Bob Burton) is discussing the debate between the Church and such men as Kepler and Galileo. He notes that many philosophers "accuse the Mosaic cosmology of being a crude popular account, far removed from true philosophical learning. For Moses makes mention of but two planets, [the sun and moon], no four elements, etc... But to proceed, these and such-like insolent and bold attempts, prodigious paradoxes, inferences, must needs follow, if it once be granted [...] [that the earth] is a planet."

These and such-like insolent and bold attempts. Moses will be open to a perilous level of criticism if we dare accuse his account of being less than entirely scientific.

It's interesting to me on a number of levels. For one thing, the church and Bible have not collapsed on account of its being proven that the earth is indeed a planet, and orbits the sun. No one bothers to worry about the fact that Moses fails to detail celestial movements, and those portions of the Bible which were once used to prove that the earth was the stable center of the universe are now considered metaphorical. Also, the mathematics even at this time clearly indicated that the earth could not be the center of the universe. Planets would wander hither and yon, now forwards, now backwards along their course - if the earth were the center. The mathematicians aligned with the church were unable to look at the simplest solution: that the earth and all planets orbit the sun, and such back-and-forth motion comes from the earth now passing, now being surpassed by its fellow travellers.

BB has some conception of this: "But to avoid these paradoxes of the earth's motion (which the Church of Rome hath lately condemned as heretical [...]), our latter mathematicians have rolled all the stones that may be stirred: and, to solve all appearances and objections, have invented new hypotheses, and fabricated new systems of the world, out of their own Dædalian heads."

Because the solution the facts point to is unthinkable, the scientist must needs fabricate new solutions without simple use of fact. BB goes on to list the myriad theories proposed by the geocentrists, all of which are laughable by modern standards.

To avoid these paradoxes, these contradictions between the Bible and science, these scientists chose to avoid the facts rather than challenge the way the Faith read its most sacred text - and in so doing, embraced falsehood. The opposite sin, that of faithlessness, may be more heinous - but is it good to step away from The Truth (and the Way, and the Life) for any reason?

You may have guessed that I'm one of those wicked creatures, a Christian evolutionist. What I have seen leads me to believe that Moses' purpose was to convey the truth of Why we are here, What we are and Who made us, while the details of How, When, and Where are best answered by the clues left in Creation. But there is a cautionary note in here for the science-oriented.

The philosophers who did not adhere strictly to Scripture as understood laughed at Moses for making no mention of the four elements. But today we laugh at them for making so much mention of them. The fundamental basis of natural philosophy - elemental theory - has since been proven as ridiculous as a geocentric universe. Perhaps this is why Moses makes so little mention of any scientific fact: if he listed the history of the universe to the last accurate detail, every age would laugh at him for failing to agree with its own inaccuracies.

Perhaps the lesson is simply that we need to pursue truth, whether it trashes our old scientific concepts or our old religious ones. And we need to avoid simply laughing at our foes, lest we ourselves prove the ridiculous ones in the end.

Addendum

When Hamlet says "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy," could we also take it to mean that more things qualify as heavenly and earthly (rather than infernal) than we might expect? Not that Hamlet's exactly a source of divine truth, but a point worth pondering. Or so it seems to my sleep-fogged brain.

Madness and musings

I really should have picked another time to start a blog. The end of my senior year of college, with its research papers and exams, is not the ideal time to have a distracting hobby.

The better part of my focus now is on my 20-page paper on fairies in seventeenth-century English literature. You'd think that would be specific enough, but no, there are a lot of possibilities to be narrowed down. I'm comforted by the fact that my authors were in something of the same predicament. You see, they lived in a time when understanding of the world was becoming increasingly scientific - or trying to. Alchemy, magic, philosophy, and natural history were all intermingled with theology and ancient literature, all trying to find a Theory of Everything. The medieval world had gotten it down to a fine art, explaining how the influences of the stars, plants, angels, animals, elements, and humans all interrelated and danced to the music of Divine Providence, to the rhythm of the music of the spheres. Copernicus had hammered this worldview in the sixteenth century. Philosophers began to question their fundamental premises, and came away frightened by the realization that many things could be explained by "secondary causes" - not everything was a divine miracle kept going only by the constant direct intervention of God. An attempt began to restructure everything, to take the pieces and put them back together in a new shape.

There was little division of labor in academia at this time. One man might be physicist, chemist, biologist, theologian, psychologist, sociologist, economist, historian, linguist... the list goes on. On one hand, it meant that any given writer tends to have a wide range of expertise. On the other hand, it means that any given writer tends to have a wide range of expertise. This is how a doctor creating An Anatomy of Melancholy (basically, a treatise on clinical depression) came to be one of my sources on fairies, in his Digression of the Nature of Spirits. (This doctor was named Richard Burton, but wrote under the pseudonym Democritus Junior. We'll call him DD, for Dick Democritus.)

DD is pretty clear on the subject of my thesis, i.e. the nature of fairies. Quite simply, they are devils. In fact, it's rather hard to discern the spirits known as fairies amidst the demons, pagan gods, classical heroes, and ghosts. Among his (demonic!) water spirits, for example, DD lists succubi, Diana, Ceres, "water Nymphs or Fairies," and the witches with whom Macbeth and Banquo had their friendly chat. "Terrestrial devils, are those Lares [Roman household gods], Genii, Faunes, Satyrs, Wood-nymphs, Foliots [DD claims they're Italian sprites], Fairies, Robin Goodfellowes, Trulli [trolls], &c." Linnaeus would be proud. Each kind of spirit known to man is neatly categorized and labelled. (There are also sections on fire and air spirits, as well as subterranean and superlunerary; I'll leave that digression to DD.)

All, however, are demons. It doesn't matter that brownies and Lares seem to exist only to serve humankind without serious reward. Nor does it matter that a great many of the water Fae in medieval and Renaissance literature are portrayed as helpful to mankind, rewarders of virtue (think the Lady of the Lake).

Is this a universal trait? Do we take all people who don't readily fit into our preexisting categories of "angels" and "humans" and consign them to be "demons"? I don't want to demonize DD. He had likely never met a brownie and might have revised his opinion of them if he had. But demonizing is so easy, so natural with that which we don't understand.

How many people would demonize God if they understood how little we understand Him?

EDIT: I find that I misremembered the name of my source. Democritus ought to be ROBERT Burton, not Richard, and therefore Bob Democritus. Or Bob Burton, BB. Or whatever.

Constants

I'm a shameless magpie when it comes to ideas. That's why the bulk of this post is someone else's work. But it's good work!

My friend has been musing of late about constants. He started out thinking about how hard it would be to simulate air in a computer program, because it's too chaotic and doesn't lend itself to neat mathematical constants. He then continued to think about other things which aren't constants:

There are a lot of them. We make assumptions. We ignore variety in favour of a simpler, unified outlook. It's actually not a bad thing, really -- it's necessary to deal with the chaos of reality. I remember the first time I did wallpapering -- okay, the only time -- and it surprised me. The walls weren't straight. The bathroom wasn't a perfect block, but more trapezoidal. It makes sense once I realized it, but until then ... well... I'd just picked the nicest, easiest numbers, and assumed they were so.

The same thing happened when people studied the orbits of planets. They wanted them to be circles. Not ellipses, as they turned out to be. Except, wait a sec -- ARE they ellipses, or is that just the nearest equivilant -- once more, we make things nice, smooth, and homogeneous when they're probably not -- not really.

So, what's my point?

Groups aren't people.

Let me run that by you again. Groups aren't people. People aren't groups.

An example, maybe?

The ACLU does not have a anti-christian agenda. The ACLU does have a anti-christian agenda. Republicans want war and dictatorship. Republicans want freedom and peace. I could go on, but ... eh.

All four of those statements are true. (Five if you include my ability and lack of desire to go on). Contradictory, but true. Why? Because the ACLU has thousands of people in it. There are millions of Republicans. Some of them are this; some of them are that. Groups are not constants. Groups aren't people -- they CONTAIN people. And yes, people have agendas, and some of them are hateful and some of them are loving and some of them don't even know who they are or why they're in a group to begin with... but to indicate that a group is one thing or another as if every member of the group is the same as every other is akin to racism, sexism, or any of those other discriminatory things that people tend to frown on.

So, I get a bit annoyed when people talk about a group as if it were a single entity; a single will, a single purpose, a single group-mind controlling everything. It's a tactic of hate, usually, because it's easy to hate groups -- and it's easy to assign them motives, because there's bound to be someone like that in the group, somewhere.

So -- groups of people? Not a constant.

People are people.

Credit goes to the Pirate Pope.

Drug Treatment Courts

I started this blog because I was tired of seeing hate becoming the main language of truth. I feel like it ought to be possible to love the sinner and hate the sin at the same time. I'm hardly an expert at it. But I can see some awesome work on that front being done by my father. He's currently doing a lot of work with Drug Treatment Courts, in North Carolina in particular but also in the world at large. It's a radical way of looking at the system. We have a problem with drug addicts turning to crime to fuel their addiction, and returning to crime after punishment. The Drug Treatment Courts are concerned with treating the disease of drug addiction so that these people can stand a fighting chance at living a decent, healthy life.

Why am I bringing this up? Because today I got an email from my father with this information:

Drug Treatment Courts, among other worthy court and intermediate
sanction programs, are on the legislative chopping block this year. It is just wrong to continue to underfund treatment, the courts and worthy programs while expanding prisons. In 1995 the President of the American Bar Association spoke to the first drug court conference and spoke these words that are sadly just as relevant today. Please read and follow the attached infromation. I once heard that in order to triumph, evil only needs good people to do nothing...

"My how we love prisons. Forget the extraordinary costs we incur today. We love prisons so much we are threatening to steal any available funding from education system in most states just to build, staff and operate our prisons. As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has so eloquently pointed out: 'We must not view our collective ability to build more prison space as a sign of success in our society.'

Yet the public continues to respond to harsh and superficial rhetoric. And worst of all, far too many of our fellow Americans continue to operate under the delusion that we can shock, scare or punish people into abandoning drugs. We make it sound so easy. And we want it to be easy, for the sad truth is that it suits our convenience. For if we simply put people away for using drugs, we never have to deal with the underlying desperation which drives so many people to the hopeless and painful life offered by narcotics.

But each of you has seen the hopelessness of our current policies. You have determined that a simple, basic human act the act of compassion and understanding may well hold the key to this problem. You have seen or you would like to see this nation deal with the narcotics problem on medical as well as criminal terms.

And, at the very least, you are willing to try something else other than a re-hashed version of the failed policies of the past. And so, it will take courage and persistence to keep going, to seek new partners in your communities for your efforts. But, please, please, I implore you to keep trying, to keep fighting. For what you do is more than dispensing justice. You're saving lives!

Most importantly of all, you are giving people hope: hope to those who thought they'd been forgotten, hope to those who don't feel the goodness of life, hope to those who think they are all out of chances. You give hope, you give opportunity and you restore dignity.

That is as close a definition to doing justice as one could ever
find."

Later in the letter, there is a forward outlining effectiveness and strategies. Feel free to skip to the "What Can I Do?" section - the rest is included for the statistically-minded.

The Drug Treatment Court (DTC) Programs are in jeopardy of losing funding. Your advocacy is needed to ensure continuation of these vital programs. DTCs began in Mecklenburg County 10 years ago (02/09/95). These programs have been so successful that they have now grown to 30 such adult, youth and family treatment courts throughout North Carolina. Please note the following program features:

What are Drug Treatment Courts?

- Adult DTC: Works with non-violent repeat offenders facing prison time

- Family DTC - Works with parents/guardians who are in danger of permanently losing custody due to abuse or neglect charges.

- Juvenile DTC - Works with non-violent juvenile offenders whose drug/alcohol abuse is impacting their lives at home, school, and within the community.

- DWI Court works with individuals convicted of Levels 1, 2, and 3 or multiple DWI offenses.

DTC Facts – Recidivism

- 80% of criminal offenders in the justice system are drug and/or alcohol involved. Most are addicted.

- Over 75% of abuse and neglect cases have parental drug and/or alcohol abuse as a major cause.

- An independent evaluation of NC DTCs shows that DTC graduates are rearrested at half the rate of non-graduates. 18% of DTC graduates were rearrested in the 12 months after discharge compared to 44% of the comparison group members.

DTC Facts - Cost Effectiveness

- It costs approximately $2,000-$2,500 annually to provide community treatment and supervision as compared to $23,000 annually to house an offender in a NC prison.

- A recent St. Louis study showed that for every dollar in added costs to operate DTCs, taxpayers realized a savings of $6.32. This represents the expenses that would have been incurred by the taxpayer over a four year period had the DTC client been placed on regular probation

What Can I Do?

The time has come to institutionalize funding for drug treatment courts. Their value has been well established and the best interests of the community require the requisite level of support be provided. For offenders who can meet the program’s requirements, the DTCs offer a way out of the costly, dehumanizing spiral of substance abuse that ruins lives and costs taxpayers a bundle. To help preserve the Drug Treatment Court Programs in this community your advocacy is needed. Please take a moment to:

1. Visit the following web address and log your support for Drug Treatment Courts.

http://www.petitiononline.com/savedtc/petition.html


2. Send a letter, E-mail or make a phone call to your local elected officials expressing your support for the Drug Treatment Court Programs and ask that they examine the record on DTCs and create a sustainable way to provide permanent, recurring funding for North Carolina’s Drug Treatment Courts. You may find the members of your local delegation by going to the North Carolina General Assembly page and selecting “House” and/or “Senate” and then “Member List.”

Thank you for considering support of this very worthwhile and cost effective program.

Janeanne Tourtellott

If you're not North Carolinian, you can still express support. Then get out there and find out what your state is doing. Because far too many places are abandoning the hard, effective method of love for the easy, ineffective method of Institution.

Continuing with an explanation of the title

I'm an English major. I pay attention to spelling. So when I noticed that my NIV spelled a certain key word "brier," I noticed. I noticed that it wasn't "briar," which I'd always thought was right. The faithless Oxford English Dictionary likewise gave preference to "brier," though it admits both are right. Still, I decided to go with the flow.

Now I've changed my mind. Dangit, I like the letter "a" in there and it is acceptable and I'll keep it. Unfortunately, it complicates things to change the URL, so it'll stay. And I want to quote the Bible without editing, so I'll leave that spelling. But I'm gonna be bold and change the title.

Yes, it's inconsistent. It's English. Ain't it glorious? (Don't worry, I won't get this technical most of the time.)

Welcome, Pope Benedict XVI

Ratzinger, if you cause my Catholic friends half the frustration they're expecting, I'm going to have to hunt you down.

May God bless your reign with miracles of divine love and Solomonic wisdom.

Starting with an explanation of the title

Last night, I wrote in my LiveJournal,

I've been trawling the blogosphere again. I should start a blog. I always like to shout and contradict people. The only trouble is, I'd be forced to be quiet and agreeable. Because that's the only way to contradict all of them.

Then I realized that I don't have to contradict everyone. I can contradict one person at a time! I can debate to my heart's content!

This would have delighted me to no end four years ago, a freshman starting college, ready to take on the errors of the world. Lately, though, I'm noticing a troubling trend in my contradictions: they seem to come from a single source. I've actually started to believe something, something bigger than a mere desire to always show the other side of an argument.

That something is rooted in one of my favorite passages of Scripture, Isaiah 27:2-5. NIV specifically - most other translations come across somewhat differently.

2In that day -

"Sing about a fruitful vineyard:
3 I, the LORD, watch over it;
I water it continually.
I guard it day and night
so that no one may harm it.
4 I am not angry.
If only there were briers and thorns confronting me!
I would march against them in battle;
I would set them all on fire.
5Or else let them come to me for refuge;
let them make peace with me,
yes, let them make peace with me."

I've always been stunned by this God who is so fiercely protective of his own, yet willing to make peace with all. And I realize this is one good impulse I have: to fight evil where I see it, and yet to make peace afterward. I like peace. I like faith, hope, and love; I like love, joy and peace; I like all these things so short in supply in most blogs.

And yet I keep thinking - in Philippians 4:8, we're told what sort of things to think about. "Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things." Truth tops the list. So if some ugly truths have to be faced before we can get to what is lovely and admirable - well, bring it on.