purity

Sin versus Purity

Abbie Smith — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:55:18 -0700

The wages of sin seem apparent to me as death this hour. Not in the funeral, graveside sense of the word, though those are evidenced as well, but what confounds me this morning is death’s residue within contexts of life--sin's ability to rob my abundance of true living, by heart-centered suffocation of awakeness to my Purified state, clean and complete.

What confounds me is sin's enticing pursuit of me as life’s center. Likewise, then, its rejection of others, and the grandiose Story of others being an integral part of mine, and vice versa. I lose sight of ubuntu*. I lose sight of what is real, unloosing my senses to that which is not. I lose sight of the fact that I am lovable- that we are creatures worth loving.

What's confounding of sin today is its ability to embitter me, detaching me in an instant from from that which I truly love. I am infatuated by its choice, and similarly, by its choice of me. Choosing sin, in my case, often means choosing ecstatic pleasures of the moment—ecstacies that will romance me for a lifetime, but satisfy me not for a day. And often I concede to sin’s choosing of me (not on a basis of my Value, but in vehement commitment to arousing addictions toward that which is not). I’d rather be picked, it seems, than believe in patience that truer Love is beckoning to pick me. I’d rather be sought after in my insecurity, or inability, or inconsistency, or inadequacy, even if by an illusion…than accept my purity, and guard it as if my sole means to all Seeing.

*The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6.23

*Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God. Matthew 5.8

*”ubuntu”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(philosophy)… "Archbishop Desmond Tutu further explained Ubuntu in 2008: One of the sayings in our country is Ubuntu - the essence of being human. Ubuntu speaks particularly about the fact that you can't exist as a human being in isolation. It speaks about our interconnectedness. You can't be human all by yourself … We think of ourselves far too frequently as just individuals, separated from one another, whereas you are connected and what you do affects the whole world. When you do well, it spreads out; it is for the whole of humanity.”

The Road and Ultra-Purity? Republicans consuming each other.

MarkM — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:02:22 -0800

The new film “The Road” is coming out this week. Viggo Mortensen plays a desperate father in post-apocalyptic America, walking south through the rubble as he tries to take his son to safety. It’s an amazingly gripping work, depicting survival in a lifeless landscape of ash and cold. It’s also a bit of a horror story, as some survivors succumb to cannibalism, as all other food (animal or vegetable) is dead and gone.

I wonder how many Republican’s will see this film. And as they watch it, will they look at each other with raised eyebrows? For nearly one year now, the Republican Party has been journeying through the post-Bush rubble, searching for the America of the past. As they sift through the remains of Newt Gingrich’s conservative revolution, they have begun to starve.

A battle has emerged for the heart of the “true Republicans.” Some believe a more centrist approach is essential to winning back the White House. Others believe the only way to regain American trust is to become even more conservative, clearing distinguishing themselves from Democrats. In the heat of the battle, they are turning against each other, using Karl Rove’s politics of division against their own kind.

Cannibalism was on display last month during an election in New York, as the Republican nominee, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, was deemed “too liberal” to run as a Republican by a group of ultra-conservatives. The Ultras supported a third candidate, Douglas Hoffman, who apparently lives on a cul-de-sac, collects Ronald Reagan ties, and only eats beef hotdogs for dinner.

After quite a battle, Mrs. Scozzafava dropped out, sick of the infighting that distracted the campaign. Then she surprised the Ultras by throwing her support behind the Democratic nominee, Bill Owens. At it turned out, the Democrat won the race, becoming the first Democrat to win the seat in more than 100 years. So much for ultra-conservative curb appeal.

So you can imagine my surprise when the New York Times ran an article this week on the new “Purity Test” being devised by a group of Ultras. According to the Times, “the proposal would require the party to withhold campaign money and endorsements from candidates who do not adhere to at least seven principles on the checklist.” A “purity check list?” Really?

The list includes things like “We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges,” which apparently removes the President from his role as Commander in Chief and relegates power to the Generals the President is supposed to supervise. Quite a shift from the historic American distinction of a civilian led military that protects our nation from being taken over by the Army. Is there room to discuss this, or is “Ultra purity” like ivory soap, just kind of one thing, no compartmentalizing?

There are also other more complicated purity promises, like one that opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, something President George W. Bush supported, a man I always considered conservatively purer than fresh driven snow blown across a cattle ranch in Texas. I guess they’ll work that out.

Some of it is, quite frankly, hilarious. The first item states that Ultras will “support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill.” I mean, wow! Can it be true that the policies enforced over eight years by the Ultras, which got us into this mess, are what they want to return to? Do these white males have the memory span of a black lab which just saw a squirrel? Remember with me: Disastrous economic policy + enormous wars + lower taxes = The Great Recession + Bush supported “Stimulus Bill.” Guys, it was less than a year ago. Really.

The list goes on, but you can read it for yourself at the end of the post. I have no doubt that the Republican Party will be back. America functions on a two party system, and Democrats will only be kept honest when they have a vigorous opposition. But the Republicans need to catch up to the present day. America is no longer a white, protestant nation that cherishes such things as “Conservative purity” We now live in a brown, religiously diverse, and evolving society that is asking different questions and not trying to return America to an idealized 1950s Doo Wop concert. The cannibalism created by the Ultras is not going to help Republicans catch up to the present, but creates a defeating distraction.

The complete “Ultra Purity Pledge:”

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

What do you think?

nine woes...part 6

Alicia Britt Chole — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:26:06 -0700

Woe to those who prefer the spirit of control over the spirit of liberty: will we expend the energy to pursue interior holiness?

(I'd rather not write this one.)

For years I've been thinking about a disturbing and distinct division among followers of Jesus. On the one hand I see many rediscovering the spirituality of the arts, befriending the unclear, finding beauty in the ambiguous, and celebrating difference.

And on the other hand I see people craving more details, more definition, "how to" downloads...almost as though they were screaming, "God, just tell me what to do and I'll do it! Give me the 10 points and I'll follow to the letter. I don't have to understand, I just need to know what you want from me."

Perhaps both groups are responding to life in an age drenched with insane amounts of information. We're tired of dog paddling in the sea--it's too vast to measure let alone drink. So some begin floating on their backs to consider an inspiring view of the sky while others search frantically for a life raft to cling to...

At first glance we might assume that only the second group is vulnerable to spiritualizing control. Certainly lists can be abused to oppress the artist, silence the prophet, and multiply the Pharisees.

Yet as an artist at heart, I'd like to speak to the first group: we too are vulnerable to the spirit of control because she sometimes masquerades as a self-gratifying version of freedom.

We celebrate our freedom. Our souls dance in the spirit of liberty. We even take some pride in not being religious. But we must be cautious: liberty can easily become lawlessness.

How can we tell the difference? By asking a penetrating question about what we just did in the name of freedom: What did this choice amplify in me?

Liberty amplifies God in our souls.

Lawlessness amplifies self.

Which was greater in the moment, late that night, the next day?

It may be costly to hear the truth.

It will be deadly not to listen.

If we become still, in silence with God we will know.

Such is the way of Spirit-led interior holiness.

Nine woes...part 1

Alicia Britt Chole — Fri, 08 May 2009 10:44:58 -0700

(For an introduction to these thoughts, please view my blog from April 30th)

Woe to those who crave fame: Do we possess the strength to be nothing?

Woe to us when...

...we daydream of greatness and call it being visionary.

...we long to be publicly affirmed in the superlative and call it God-confidence.

...we boast of opportunities and call it faith.

May we speak honestly about the spiritualization of ambition in the church?

Over fifteen years ago, I was slowly soaking in Christ's passion station by station in a desert prayer garden. Misunderstood, misrepresented, betrayed, beaten, rejected, mocked, ultimately murdered...in each moment of pain Jesus could have stopped the suffering with one word: "enough." But instead, Jesus assumed a posture of holy weakness.

As the days passed, it occurred to me that Jesus' true strength wasn't revealed in his ability to walk on water and calm storms. Christ's true strength wasn't revealed in his ability to deliver the demonized and minister to the multitudes. His true strength was revealed in his ability to empty himself, to become nothing, to die.

I also realized in that prayer garden that I possessed sufficient strength to exhaust myself studying and teaching and mentoring the multitudes but I did not possess sufficient strength to be nothing.

This grace to be nothing, this ability to appear to be less in order to be able to do more, this is a Jesus-style strength that enables a generation to carry God's power with purity, that equips a soul to be undeterred by rejection and uncontaminated by praise.

We must seek it. More than we can imagine rests upon it.

(to be continued)