INSPIRATION & THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

Visit this web-site, then post your response here. I challenge you, however, to be charitable in what you write.

McNaughton Fine Art

www.mcnaughtonart.com

I found this painting through a web-site that ridiculed it. The ridicule troubled me but so did the work of the artist - by work I mean both the visual and written aspects. I am not ashamed to be fervently in favor of the idea of America articulated so well in our Constitution.

I do wonder, however, if this piece of work crosses the line between idea and idolatry. The idea of America must not be what one worships.

RESPONSE FROM A FRIEND:

I don't see it as idolatry...I did question his remark that the constitution was inspired of God...but I think it is rather a matter of semantics. The whole painting is symbolic and I think it gives a pretty good picture of where we've been and where we could be going. At least it gives food for thought! Thanks for posting, Craig.

Craig Tavani wrote:

I have wondered myself whether or not "the constitution was inspired of God." This brings into question what "inspiration" means.

I believe right relationship is the means by which God's breath is fully present - one on one, we each are responsible for inspiring the other, like a perfectly functioning lung system. Our first act as a human being, once we are born, is to breathe. Why should the new birth be any different? Breathing is what those born again are called to do - new life, new breath (once choked by sin, now free from death). Breathe in, breathe out - me, you. If our relationship is not right, we slowly suffocate one another.

The letter is dead, the Spirit is life. What is written in the Constitution codifies the freedom that ought to be the atmosphere in which we live and move and have our being. The Constitution does not grant us freedom; freedom is a gracious gift of God to all humanity - this is what is declared in the charter that initiated what became the United States of America. The Constitution must be understood in that context.

Misunderstanding this will choke us to death.

"US" & "THEM"

The "us" and "them" mentality troubles me.

We have got to come to grips with

the relational implications of being "in the world, but not of it."

To be friends with sinners yet not sin was exemplified in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. What it means to be a friend is as significant to faithful doctrine as anything else in theology; we are foolish to think we understand the word "fellowship" if we fail to comprehend "friendship."

I wonder if the "holiness" movement suffered from this sociological flaw, being so intent on teaching separation from sin that it sowed seeds detrimental to healthy society. The proper pursuit of holiness challenges us to consider personal relationship with God AND others - we are to love the One God in Heaven AND the many others God has created to be in the world with us.

One result is that we, who may participate in some faulty concept of holiness, group ourselves together apart from "worldly" society, then are faced with the human task of ordering the society of our separated group. We may speak about the Spirit moving us to order ourselves to God, but the politics involved in our particular polity sure seem similar to how politics play out in the world. I am sickened by this apparently inevitable process that has played itself out throughout Church history.

Will we never learn? I do not want to play by the rules of this world, but we must figure out a better way to participate in the political ordering of our society. It is not "us" versus "them" but all of us before God who loved the world in coming among us to live, die, and be resurrected to new life so that we can be with Him to live without death determining our destiny.

My brother quipped:
"How far did Jesus chase that rich young man?"

My reply:
Cute, Nick. However, consider how Jesus behaved while the young man was with Him.

Why must every human encounter be viewed from the perspective of what happens after people leave? Should we not rather study what is going on while people are together? Society is not made up of a group of strangers because any number of persons stop being strangers once they encounter one another. This encounter then begins the relationship of which society is the consequence.

We fail to keep a coherent society because we operate from a position of estranged enmity rather than friendly fellowship. This is not good.

POLITICAL POTSHOTS

A friend’s recent post on FACEBOOK caught my attention, (as such postings usually do). I followed the link (http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/rush-limbaugh-questions-glenn-becks-objective-in-keynote-speech/) and discovered the following posted under comments to the article and post it here because the writer articulates better than I can a frustration I have with the Democratic Party (I am uncomfortable with using the word "hatred" on such a public forum, but I must admit that I have spoken like this in private, so I leave it unedited - please forgive me any offence):

Azarkhan says: February 23, 2010 at 10:51 am

For those on the left who “can’t figure out the point” Rush and Mark Levine are making, let me explain it to you.

Like me, they have a deep and abiding hatred of the Democratic Party and its sympathizers. Over the years we have seen the Democratic Party lie, cheat, deceive, and exhibit outright contempt for the law, all the while exhibiting a sanctimonius, “holier then thou” attitude. In their arrogance, the Democrats refuse to even entertain the notion that perhaps, just perhaps, some of their prescriptions for America may be wrong.

The words of a professor who witnessed the 1968 student takeover at Columbia University are equally valid today:

“Again and again one is struck by the posture of complete self-righteousness and of unyielding moral absolutism in the attitudes and actions of the radical leaders. “I am totally right and completely moral, and you-if you disagree with me-are absolutely wrong and wicked….You have no rights that I must respect, and you must agree to accept everything I demand….” ”

These same radicals later disrupted the Democratic convention in Chicago and finally, in 1972, with the McGovern candidacy, took over the Democratic Party. Although they have grown older, their juvenile insistence on moral absolutism has never left them. This secular fanaticism is displayed by the radical Democrats in the House and Senate and their allies in various media outlets, ranging from the New York Times to the Daily Kos.

This is why many conservatives do not agree with Glenn Beck’s attack on Republicans. While the Republicans may indeed be corrupt, they are not a threat to the Constitution or our individual freedoms.

On the other hand, the Democrats are “true believers” who will stop at nothing in their drive to impose their values on American society. For the Democrats, the Constitution is a hindrance, a mere scrap of paper to be ignored whenever circumstances dictate. And the only individual freedoms they recognize is their “freedom” to do whatever is necessary, legal of illegal, moral of immoral, to impose their will on the majority.

My friend, in reply, wrote:

“… it truly amazes me, how similar both sides rant at each other. Liberals "fee" that Conservatives are the ones who try to ram their moral, "holier than thou" beliefs on the rest of us. I find the comment almost satirical, though I realize it was meant to be serious.

I seldom meet a Liberal or Progressive who is sure of anything, that is the problem, there is no "one" way, opinion or any kind of "group think", unlike the litmus test being touted by Conservatives.

It is the Democrats who insist on preserving our personal liberties and rights. Republicans preserve the liberty and rights of those they agree with or want to change.

To clarify, I was not confused by what Limbaugh was saying, but HOW he said, the sentence lacked substance, was confusing and seeemed to use circular syntax.

To feel "hatred" for a political party seems to me a very sad thing. I may disagree with conservative politics, and I certainly dislike bush, cheney and the rest, and feel they were disrespectful of the American people and our Constitution, but I blame each of them for their personal actions not the "party".

There is no room for conversation across a chasm, and beck, limbaugh, rove and the rest have no interest in building a bridge, it is their way, or no way. That is why they spend all their time spreading falsehoods and attempting to discredit the logical and diplomatic efforts of our President.

President Obama is the repudiation of 8 years of conservative politics. The economic collapse is the culmination of "small government, less taxes". I hope that enough Liberals will stop sipping their chardonny and remember that and get out and vote. Unfortunately, history tells us that the mid-term election after a Presidential election almost always goes to the opposition.

Here is my reply:

You and I seem to agree on the common goal of "preserving our personal liberties and rights." We, without doubt, disagree on which political party is more insistent on doing so. Hypocrites and fools populate all parties, so all can be targets of satiric critique.

Personally, I would rather our discussion be more focused on coming to a better understanding of what is implied in "preserving our personal liberties and rights." Sniping at political opponents muddies the waters. Caring conversation calls for clarity rather than discombobulative wisecracks and ad hominem attacks.

My point in posting the previous comment regarding my frustration with the Democratic Party was to give some historical perspective to my contemporary views. You continually complain about the last 8 years prior to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. My complaint comprehends a time beyond that back to the 60's when I first became involved in the political process with my parents in Richard Nixon's first presidential campaign (it is interesting to note that the catch-phrase at the time to describe "us" was "the Silent Majority"). I went through a hyper-conservative phrase in the '80s while serving as an Army officer under President Reagan while he led the world against the evil of communism and shook up the political establishment with his popular conservatism; at the time I was an avid suscriber to the National Review and even had very close connections to those in the Christian Reconstructionist movement whose Dominion theology dominated much Evangelical political thought.

What happened, however, was that, while stationed in Germany, I became very close friends with non-Americans whose philosophy and politics differed greatly from my own. These intimate friendships eventually reformed how I thought and how I communicated my thinking in conversation. My reformation continued as I worked in the Episcopal Church while a seminarian at a Pentecostal institution - the wide variety of my relationships required much further reformation of thought and character in me.

I can go on, but let me just say that I like to think I am still undergoing reformation. I am very hopeful that my desire for right relationship disciplines my drive for righteous society. Athough sometimes my sympathy for certain political viewpoints may seem repulsive to you, please realize that I DO NOT allow politics to be the grid according to which I live and move and have my being. I hope I am always ready to reform myself according to what is right rather than remain rooted in some wrong-minded reputation of my own making.

WikiCatachism

This idea of a WikiCatechism fits well with the Catecatch-as-you-can theological chaos of contemporary society. I continuously challenge my students to consider carefully a "me-oriented" magesterial mindset that insists on following a malformed conscience.

WikiCatechism — The Curt Jester

www.splendoroftruth.com

WikiCatechism is a collaboratively edited catechism to which you can contribute your own theological viewpoint. Wiki is a piece of server-based software that allows users to create and edit catechism pages using any web browser.

JUDGMENT = GRACE/TRUTH

In class today we discussed some of the ethical issues which students found provacative. I reminded the class before-hand to keep in mind that all judgment must incorporate both truth and grace. Our class discussion did well in modelling this - everyone showed one another friendly respect in considering all that was said.

The intended end of judgment is joy. Gracious truth/true grace infuses all aspects of righteous judgment. According to Revelation 20:11-15, at the Last Judgment when all humanity appears before the Great White Throne with One sitting there ready to judge everyone from the great to the lowly, there will be two books. All will be judged according to their deeds as recorded in the Book of Deeds; however, anyone whose name is not found written in the Book of Life is to undergo what Scripture calls "the second death." Consider the Book of Deeds as a record of Truth which discloses all things with nothing remaining hidden from being known; consider the Book of Life as a guarantee of Grace which is made possible through the Crucified Christ now resurrected to sit on the throne of judgment (cf. Revelation 3:5; also Matthew 10:32-33).

We carry the power of judgment with us in living now. When face to face with another, the subseqent relationship must reflect the righteous judgment to come - gracious truth must define the interaction that takes place and true grace must remain foremost in provoking one another, not to wrathful wickedness, but to loving-kindness.

[See Hebrews 12-13 for one way Scripture describes such a lifestyle.]

Fool of Wisdom

MOROSOPHIA

(foolosophy: foolish wisdom of God)

This fellow's wise enough

to play the fool.

TWELFTH NIGHT, IIIi:61

I turned my mind to understand,

to investigate,

to search out

wisdom

and the scheme of things.

I turned my mind to understand
the stupidity of wickedness and
the madness of folly.

Applying myself to the understanding of wisdom

as well as of madness and folly,

I learned that
this is a chasing after the wind.

My mind still guiding me with "wisdom,"
I tried cheering myself with wine,
and embracing folly.
Loose laughter, however, is foolish.
What does such pleasure accomplish?

wisdom.

OUTWEIGHS

A little folly

Was ever one wiser than one's own weak wit?

Why would one ever dare to think, "Try it?"

When one's world is found empty,
God's word proves itself full.

Was one ever so wise to not fail as a fool?

There is more hope for a fool

than one wise in one's own eyes.

A proverb in the mouth of a fool

hangs limp.

Answer not a fool according to his folly

lest you become

like a fool yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly

lest, in his own eyes,

he become wise.

Wisdom reposes in the heart of the discerning

and

even among fools

she lets herself be known.

Folly is loud

undisciplined

without knowledge.

Sitting at the highest point in the city,

Folly calls out to those who pass by:

"Let all who are simple come here! "

To all who lack judgment,

Folly says,

"Stolen water is sweet;

food eaten in secret is delicious!"

But little do they know

that the dead are there;

the guests of Folly

are in the depths of the grave.

The wise in heart accept commands,

but a chattering fool

comes to ruin.

The wise store up knowledge,

but the mouth of a fool

invites ruin.

Whoever conceals one's hatred

has lying lips,

and whoever spreads slander

is a fool.

The lips of the righteous nourish many,

but fools die for lack of judgment.

The one who brings trouble on one's family

will inherit the wind,

and the fool will be servant to the wise.

The way of a fool

seems right to him,

but a wise man listens to advice.

A fool shows his annoyance at once,

but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself,

but the hearts of fools blurt out folly.

Every prudent man acts out of knowledge,

but a fool exposes his folly.

A longing fulfilled is sweet to the soul,

but fools detest turning from evil.

He who walks with the wise grows wise,

but a companion of fools suffers harm.

The wise woman builds her house,

but with her own hands

the foolish one tears her house down.

A fool's talk brings a rod to his back,

but the lips of the wise protect them.

Stay away from a foolish man,

for you will not find knowledge

on his lips.

The wisdom of the prudent

is to give thought to their ways,

but the folly of fools is deception.

Fools mock at making amends for sin,

but good will is found among the upright.

Even in laughter the heart may ache

and joy may end in grief.

A wise man fears the LORD and shuns evil,

but a fool is hotheaded and reckless.

The simple inherit folly,

but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.

The wealth of the wise is their crown,

but

the folly of fools yields folly.

A patient man has great understanding,

but a quick-tempered man displays folly.

A fool spurns his father's discipline,

but whoever heeds correction shows prudence.

The lips of the wise spread knowledge;

not so the hearts of fools.

Death and Destruction lie open to the LORD

- how much more the hearts of men!

The discerning heart seeks knowledge,

but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.

Folly delights one who lacks judgment,

but a man of understanding keeps a straight course.

Understanding is a fountain of life

to those who have it,

but folly brings punishment to fools.

For a fool

HONOR

is unfitting.

A longing fulfilled

is sweet to the soul,

yet the fool is determined

to return to his folly.