God, hes left as on aur oun.
Now lemme hear an amen from the choir!
I open with the words of Paul, from his letter to the Romans, chapter 16, verses 18 and 19: “For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.” And I turn to his first letter to the people of Corinth, chapter 2, verses 4 and 5: “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”
And what I would have you do, friends and neighbors, brothers and sisters, is go out into the world of blogs and the mediamilieu and see for yourselves what enticing words, good and fair, have been deceiving the hearts of the simple these past few days; I would have you seek out this wisdom of men and women and judge it for yourselves. —Go, read the words of Jeanne D’Arc, as she muses on the differences between a politician with a spine, and a politician without. (A spine is a spine, friends and neighbors, for all that it’s not found till the last minute of a long, dark midnight.)
Read for yourselves what Dwight Meredith says, when he tells us that getting things done is the only reward we need to do more things, and read for yourselves the signs he’s selected to prove to himself (and you, brothers and sisters) that things are, indeed, getting done.
Read the words of those who ought to be simple concerning evil, and who yet have the temerity to ask troubling, complex questions, about the actions we take against those we have named our enemies, and the actions taken against those who exhort us to stop. Read the words of those few who even have the temerity to ask troubling, complex questions of those who speak and preach in demonstration of power.
Come, read the burden that Sisyphus has shrugged off before you, and ponder the meaning of these two little words, so simple when it comes to doing good: Never again.—And if I might be permitted a moment to shrug off my own conceit, Prof. Reynolds: perhaps the Canadians and Europeans are so “sanctimonious” because they aren’t haphazardly proposing the unthinkable crime of locking up people whose only crimes are the colors of their skin, the countries of their origin, the names of their religions. If the Europeans and the Canadians are feckless in this regard, sir, then feck is something I never want; it is something utterly antithetical to the ideals of the country I thought I was in. Never again means never again. Not nohow, noway, nobody.
Ahem.
Then, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors, I would ask you to hearken to the words of William Rivers Pitt, when he says to us, “In my faith, I stand on the precepts of the religion, and not upon any innate worthiness within the hierarchy. I do not do so because I am some sort of rebel. I do so because the truth that first breathed life into the Church is still worthy, even as the mortals who pretended to carry its banner are not. I did not leave the Church. It left me.”
How breathtaking in its arrogance, this wisdom of women and men! Exhorting us to show mercy and compassion, even to the least among us, even to those the law has condemned to die; affirming that the struggle is its own reward; demanding that our other cheek always be ready, no matter how foolish or dangerous it might seem to turn it. Urging us to set aside the words of those who serve only their own bellies. (Concerning those who ask complex and troubling questions of evil, evil in the face of which we are told to be simple, I can only offer up a question of my own: how can we be wise unto that which is good if we are not also wise in what we name to be evil?)
We fight, or so we are told by some, to preserve our way of life, the fine Judeo-Christian values which built this nation and made it strong. Let’s for the moment allow it; let’s set aside the many (and valid) arguments against this simple assertion. But set aside with it those notions of Judeo-Christianity drawn from the strictures of Deuteronomy or the comforting fevre dreams of Revelations. (I do not trust Biblical exegesis from those who can’t even read Tolkien properly.) Instead, let’s turn to Paul—crabby, vicious, mean-spirited, priggish Paul, nèe Saul the Pharisee, the tax collector; let’s take up what are perhaps the finest words he ever wrote, in that first letter to those immoral, deplorable Corinthians:
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
“Charity.” Some translate it as “love,” but I find this a pale echo of what he meant: agape, Paul wrote; an open love, a social love, a love for your fellow humans. A charitable love. The greatest of that which abides.
If this is the Judeo-Christian value that we’re fighting for: charity; if we keep that always in mind, if we understand that when we speak we speak only our parts and that when we see the world around us we see it imperfectly, unclearly, through a dark glass; that none of us can ever know the whole of any of it, and so we must all in all our dealings act with charity, with the benefit of our doubts (though they may be legion)—if charity is what we’re fighting for—
Well, hell. Sign me up.
(Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the Devil can quote Scripture to his purpose—)
Commenting is closed for this article.
Good post, and well put.
But. (There's always a but.) Much as I love the King James, it means adding yet another layer of translation to the Greek of Paul, since it's the English of 1611. That "through a glass darkly" means through the distorions of a mirror. But you nailed the love/charity/caritas/agape thing. You might want to take a look at this pretty thorough non sectarian commentary on the passage.
And you know, I even knew that bit about the "dark glass" somewhere in the back of my trivia-laden brain. Dammit.
And thanks for the great link, Lisa. I think I'll try to sneak it into the text of the post, if I can find a place to put it...
Don't look at me. I'm a Jew-turned-atheist. Luckily the charities that cash my checks don't seem to screen for that. :p
wow.
you've just renewed/strengthened/justified my love for the web. you provide a wonderful "frame" for reading the links. I personally would nominate this for blog post of the year right now.
I've always loved that chapter of Paul. thanks for the translation link above too. my musical ear has always preferred "love," (partly just for the "metrics" (# of syllables--not sure if a real word in this sense...) of it--certainly easier to set for singers) but I may have to rethink that. Language is a bitch.
but translation issues aside, to be spot-on AND beautiful is all any writer can hope to achieve. mazeltov.