The Martyrdom We Seek; or, Why Voting for Peace Has Become So Bloody Hard

I find it funny how, in many quarters, the world today is said to be awash in selfishness. Perhaps as never before. Rather as if our biggest societal challenges all boiled down to a sort of pervasive, consuming apathy. And that, of course, regarding anything beyond our most immediate (and self-gratifying) individual concerns.

Yet ask yourself, as you look about this churning Great Global World: Do you really find any shortage, not just of altruism, but of literal martyrs, and martyrdoms? And these often of the most costly and and sacrificial kinds? (To say nothing of blood-sacrificing.) Notice, too, how they seem to run the very widest spiritual gamut: everything from Hamasian diabolism, to Ukrainean "sanctity," to world-class nations gambling their economic futures for some chimera of Armageddon-like "total victory." 

At all events (and however much or little each side reflects Real Differences of Light and Darkness), what they seem to have most saliently in common is a blithe determination to count almost no cost whatsoever. And least of all to "their own" side, or among "their own" kind.  Maybe the assumption is that any harm I risk to myself is worth whatever piecemeal, "by-a-thousand-cuts" damage I can inflict on you. Almost as if I were confident, even at point of total collapse, of some assured relief or deliverance - maybe one that's supposed to come, science-fiction-style, from out of an alien realm. Or perhaps from another dimension? Or other side of eternity?

(Which, if so, in turn makes me wonder just what sort of bubble we're actually living in.)

Might I suggest, then, that the problem with our present, 21st-century world is not that it flees suffering, or hardship, or sacrifice. That may have been a fair enough diagnosis of, say, America and American popular culture in the 1960s, '70s and '80s. But it's an extremely poor and misleading description, either of America or of our Americanized, globalized world - including both mainland China and Saudi Arabia - since roughly AD 2000. The trouble with today's world is not that it doesn't know how to seek and pursue suffering. Along with, in a twisted sort of way, reveling in it, self-martyring by it, using it as a way of building one's own side up and putting the other side down (presumably for not being "sacrificial," or "dedicated," or "compassionate" - or even progressive - enough). Our global 21st-century world has no problem whatever doing and celebrating any of those things. The trouble with us today - and what may give us every deceptive appearance of "conventional" seflishness - is that we don't know how to accept suffering. Certainly none, in any case, that's not of our direct and express making. Or adversity, for that matter. Or difficulty. Or sometimes even the slightest inconvenience. But in particular, may I suggest, when it "comes from God"?

Speaking of Whom, what was it our parents used to say, once upon a time? "DON'T MAKE ME COME DOWN THERE"?

Why I am a Lay Franciscan

1) In a world growing more and more addicted to scale and complexity, Franciscans learn that small, simple acts of kindness and care may sometimes be both more pleasing to God, and more helpful to real (as opposed to projected, or imaginary) human creatures. 

2) In a world where one can never have enough, Franciscans learn that having less somehow gives us not only more time and energy, but also more awareness and compassion for the needs of others (both human and non-human).

3) In an asteroid-filled universe (not to mention a drone-puzzled Pentagon)  that can seem every day more terrifying and unpredictable, Franciscans learn small, simple ways, not only of making "nature" friendlier, but maybe even, by God's grace, of bringing out the friendliness that is already there (in ALL kinds of creatures)?

4) In a world where one can never be strong and secure enough, Franciscans learn that trustfulness and vulnerability often point the Way to a more God-filled security, and a more loving (because more humble) strength.  

5) In a world where things can never go fast enough, Franciscans learn that slowing down can both minimize mistakes, and multiply awareness and consideration of others.

6) In a world of "service with a strain" - where one should never quite be oneself - Franciscans learn that being who we are is sometimes the best hospitality, and that one's own nature is usually the amplest foundation for the fulness of God's grace.

Think of it! A love that actually FREES!

Yes, actually frees.

As opposed to, you know, those modern-design modes of big, ambitious, DYNAMIC love, of which we find no little evidence in the Great Global World today. The sort of bold, take-charge loves - whether erotic/sexual, interpersonal, operational, economic, political, progressive, global, etc - wherein we find ourselves so drivenly invested in, say, the progress, or the transformation, or even the perfection of the beloved, that we seem to be offering them just about everything they could ever . . .  not want. Or, to put it more directly: everything they could ever want, except freedom. And in particular the freedom to be just themselves. And nothing but themselves. So help us God.

Which aggressive charity also, by coincidence, just happens to be the kind of love that makes Us Knowing Ones more emotionally secure and self-assured. And persuaded of our own rightness, or Right-Side-of-Historyness, or whatever. Never mind, of course, about the diminishing effects it may have on the security and confidence of those we love. Or at least try, and strain, to love. After all, if they are in some key operational sense our inferiors (at least for the provisional time being), it may be asked: What right do they have to a security and confidence even remotely on a par with ours?

Still I wonder, is it possible for anyone - even for Us - to be too confident? To be too sure of even Our Own good intentions? There are limits, after all, to the power (or even the benevolence) of any mere human manipulation, however superior its source. Imagine, then, if just for one day we took these loved ones, in whose perfection we are so drivenly invested, out of our own capable hands. And left them, say, in God's. Could we be as certain of their attaining, as quickly, that same utmost potential that's surely an ace-in-the-hole under our generous oversight? But now further imagine, we had no contact with them for one whole week. Or month. Or even for an entire year? 

And now suppose that - unthinkable though it be, and a heinous breach of responsibility on our part - we were never to see them again. Granted, God remains in ultimate charge. And no doubt He will take care of them, after His fashion. Yet wouldn't He so much the more prefer to work through Us? And if not, then why on earth has He created us in His image?? More to the point, why has He empowered Us to be so much better - at least for now - than the ones we're trying to help???

Which brings me to what I think is the pivotal question: 

Can we trust God enough to allow people their completest freedom from us - from our  expectations, urgencies and agendas? From our desires and longings and lusts? And still enjoy, marvel at, be enraptured with the end product? But in particular when all the God-indwelt fulness of that freedom entails their souls' liberty, not just from our busy minds and wills and agendas, but from their own. And all the more so, it seems to me, when those same souls' utterly natural, unlabored breathing at last opens a portal to Something barely suspected, even from within their own hearts: A Love, graciously acting upon - and yet fully consonant with - their own free will, that actually enjoys our freedom too.

The Real Price of Peace

So the markets took a real tumble early last week. And more or less globally, from what I understand (and whatever may be the real merits of the non-DJIA recoveries by week's end). 

Not, mind you, that I even begin to grasp all the different, myriad, apparently innumerable factors - both US and global - that have gone into producing this epic volatility. But what I do gather, from what seems to be the dominant narrative, is that whatever the various factors, and however much they may diverge, they are one and all intra-economic. I.e., they're all pretty much both intrinsic and confined to the economic realm, in that they're not in any significant way impinged upon by what one might call extra-economic factors. Like war, for instance. Along with the increasingly near-apocalyptic scales and stakes of our current and emerging wars. Plus the purported truth that, no matter how high-stakes and trans-worldly and potentially annihilational these wars get - why, the only rational and pragmatic (to say nothing of ethical) response is to escalate them still further, and more zealously. 

And confidently.

And that's another thing. (Don't get me started, right?)

Here I had thought that our Neojeffersonian Exceptionalist America - what with its juggernaut Empire of Liberty steamrolling across all corners of the globe, crushing every pocket of authoritarian resistance, etc - was supposed to usher in a more permanently rational, technocratic, apolitically efficient, non-ideologically productive, and profitable, but above all peaceful, world.

Oh darn, that's right: NO PEACE until every last enemy has been placed under our Messianic American feet. I.e., not till Russia, for starters, has been duly and properly attritioned, dismantled, decomposed. Followed by the ever-unpopular Iran (Ezekiel 38 and all that). Or in reverse sequence, if you like. 

And last but never least (but don't let this get out to the Evangelicals and other trusting parties) - yes, Israel. Or rather, in the latter case, no peace till Zion has been - well, not exactly crushed - but rather painted into the appropriately tight corner: one where she at last knows on whose real sufferance, and highly conditional good will, she continues to exist. Which is to say, not just those of "America" or "the West," but above all, of those benevolently disinterested middlemen mentioned in a previous post (par. 5).

In short, not till even the "Empire of Liberty" knows who's (the real) boss.

Carry on.

God's Other Face - and Ours

Nobody sensible ever said that love was easy. Much less meant to be so. But in spite of the fact that real charity requires real suffering, and sacrifice, I do continue to think that, too often, we exaggerate love's challenges: whether as a pretext for our own self-heroism and -glory, or as an excuse for letting ourselves off "love's hook." The point in the latter case being that "it's just too hard"; whereas in the former case, why, it's supposed to be hard, buddy - and should never, ever be anything else.

But especially in these busy activist times, I think we're prone to exaggerate both the hardships of love, and the ugliness, or unpleasantness, of those we are supposed to love. Or feel called upon to love. The reasons may be various, of course. But often they have something to do with the way we look at the universe. It could be our way of toughening ourselves against the perceived grittiness, or nastiness, or even malignance, of what is commonly called "real life," or the "real world."  Even as we perfunctorily continue to affirm its Creator's "goodness." Still in all, I can hardly help wondering: So far as we continually over-estimate, over-remember, over-prepare for the "war-and-conflict" aspect of life in the world, do we not also risk under-estimating, and even forgetting, the peace - let alone the love - of the God who made it?

For surely it can't be such a hard thing, to figure out how best to love the creature in front of me. It can't be so hard to be most alive to those of its characterisitics which are, one might say, most salient:  most intrinsic, if you will, or God-designed. And, of course, God-intended.

Or, to put it by way of contrast, NOT those of its traits which would likely be of most interest to a certain type of scientist, or other experimenter. Or bureaucrat. Or policy wonk. Or Amazonized manager.  I.e., NOT those traits that are, say, easiest to predict, and pigeonhole; to schematize and stereotype; to calculate or categorize; to dismiss or despise. Or be - continually - disappointed in. (Not that you expected all that much of the sorry creature in the first place.)

So of course, by salient, I don't mean any of these measurable, "scientific," "bureaucratic" traits, our sole focus upon which can make the uniqueness of any living thing that much harder to recognize and appreciate, much less love. I mean, rather, precisely those things about it that are most surprising, and in a pleasant way; that most unexpectedly exceeded our expectations, and disappointed our doubts and fears (or would, if just for once we allowed any creature a modicum of that delicious, serenely undismissive, undespising silence in which its real life could breathe.*)  

*Then again, who could afford even the mere time to do that, in this Great Operation of Life?

But in particular, I believe, any living - even human - creature would be easier to love, if only we could be alive, and alert, to something further about it. Or deeper within it. Something that's often if not nearly always hard to detect. And that sometimes can barely be sensed at all, despite our most strenuous efforts. Or at least, not apart from the Silence mentioned at the close of the previous paragraph. I mean that strange core of any creature's being in which, even more than it desires the wisdom, teaching or righteousness of its Maker, it hungers for His presence, and pleasure, and naturalness, and delightingness, and fascination, and absorption, and, indeed, all those things He most longs to be, for those who most utterly trust and delight in Him. As opposed to all those things He so often "has to be," towards those who most adamantly refuse to trust in Him (often, even while striving to serve Him), and so can find no pleasure or peace in Him.

In a nutshell? I think most people wouldn't be nearly so hard to love, if only we bothered to remember, and embrace, and (assuming it's not too hard) even love that soul in them - i.e., that core of each one of us - which is of so little interest to a certain kind of scientist, bureaucrat, manager, etc, precisely because, while it is easy enough for even our own minds and wills to oppress and boss around, it is so devilishly hard for anyone (other than God) to predict, and control.

Pray for the peace of Kyiv, etc. 

(Edited.)

The Nerve of Some People

So now Israel has the supreme gall to shut down the operations of Al Jazeera within its borders. And Progressive World Opinion, right on cue, greets the news with all the delicately calibrated, nuanced outrage we've come to expect from this Most Enlightened Point in All of Human Time. After all, why - in the name of sanity - would any decent country dream of muzzling such a fair-minded, compassionate, and meticulously balanced lover of both Israel and the Gaza Strip as Al Jazeera? And all the more so when you consider the indisputably decent country that hosts it . . . (or decent, at any rate, compared to those genocidal Israelis?)

Shall I tell you what I think is the one most revealing, and vital, and urgent hope for the entire Middle East today? (One clue: It's not the sort of hope embraced by most Hamasified Palestinians. At least not consciously.)

One day this maddening miracle called Israel is going to discover Who it is she really depends on, for everything. But most vitally for her wisdom, and real strength, and real survival. On that day she will learn also what are the real threats to that survival, in the fullest sense of the latter word: spiritually no less than economically; culturally, and Scripturally, as well as militarily and politically; in the garden, and prosperity, as well as in the desert and adversity. And that it is the former - the garden - which requires of each of us the kind of humility that is lowliest, most trustful, most solacing and gratifying. At least if we're actually to enjoy the garden, instead of just presupposing it, and taking it for granted. And so wasting and destroying it.

One day Israel is going to discover that her worst enemies are not those who are determined to destroy her no matter what the cost, to themselves or others (as bad as they are). Neither is it those who are determined to protect and preserve her no matter what the cost, to themselves or others (as misguided as they may be). One day Israel will know - hopefully not "too late" - that her deadliest enemies, both spiritually and physically, are all those who even now are saying: "Why yes, we'll let you live, and survive, and even thrive and prosper . . . on these conditions . . ."

In short, one day Israel is going to learn that her most insidiously deadly enemies are not the Washingtons and Londons, the Tehrans and Gaza Cities or even the Moscows of the drama; but rather all those sly, subtle middlemen - Dohas and Ankaras and even Beijings (plus God knows how many colluding Western entities and interests) - whose speciality it is to play both ends against the middle: who give sanctuary to, who glorify and radicalize and martyrize the one side, even as they profess to understand and intercede for - and plead with - the other. The very ones, in fact, who have done the most to foment the climate, not just of hatred and detestation of Israel, but of the smug, successionist  superiority of Islam to all things both Jewish and Western. Let no one say money doesn't talk.

On that day - just maybe, finally - the smarter Israelis (I wish I could be sure Netanyahu & Co will be numbered among them) will realize that NO implosion or collapse or breakup of Iran is going to prevent the infilling of that void by the likes of ISIS (or some yet grosser mutation). Any more than the collapse of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza prevented the rise of Hamas. 

Meanwhile pray - as never before - for the peace and sanity of Kiev. And the return to sanity of Moscow (and Macron). 

But above all, of course, pray for the peace and sanity of Jerusalem. And of all those who wish her well. Amen.

The Next Level Revisited (and then some)

"So - why do you suppose God chose to make man in His image and likeness? (Assuming there is a God, of course; though you must admit, the metaphor does have some excellent uses).

"Why else? except that from the beginning He intended man to be an infinitely self-divinizing creature, who must ever be striving to pitch his tent in places of always-ascending grades of difficulty, hardship, inhospitality. Places - such as commonly denoted by terms like 'desert,' 'wilderness,' 'wasteland,' etc - places in which, no matter how strong or even dominant you are, the struggle for life is keen. Perhaps even brutal. If not utterly grueling and exhausting. Places, in short, in which fragile creatures can be neither cherished, nor respected, nor even protected - but only despised. (Including such fragile creatures as man himself was, at the outset of his journey.)

"But not just despised, please note, but shown nothing whatever of what - well, most of us would recognize as understanding, or mercy, or love. The point being that, if man really wants to be loved, and to render himself worthy of being loved (by God or anyone else), he must be prepared to make himself always stronger, and stronger . . . (part I, pars. 5-7)

"How else, indeed, is he ever going to succeed in taking himself - not to mention everything else - to that ever-insatiable next level? How otherwise, do you suppose, is he ever going to make himself 'at home' in the near-total desert and inhospitality of outer space?

"Or perhaps you thought he was going to colonize and subdue the farthest reaches of the universe by being some meek and tender sacrificial lamb?"