Bird and Stone

I have cried every day for over a year.  Every quiet time, every women’s prayer meeting, every church service, driving in the car, sitting in my office, walking across campus between classes.  Suffice it to say, the subject of my sorrow is a “big waily deal.”  And I have been the big wailer. 

The poet of Psalm 119 was no stranger to depression.  He says, “I am laid low in the dust… My soul is weary with sorrow” (v. 25, 28) and again, “I have suffered much… Look upon my suffering and deliver me” (v. 107, 153).  Often, despite relentless prayers, we fail to see any response from God.  How can He be so slow? “My soul faints with longing for your salvation… My eyes fail, looking for your promise… HOW LONG MUST YOUR SERVANT WAIT???” (81, 82, 84, caps and extra punctuation added).

The Apostle Peter tells us that God “is NOT slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness.”  (2 Pet. 3:9, caps added).  What appears to be slowness is actually God’s patience.  Grief must do its work in our hearts.  Jesus said, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.” (Matt. 5:4).  The psalmist also holds up the promise of an end to mourning:  “May your unfailing love be my comfort, according to your promise to your servant.” (76).   

I readily admit that grief has been good for my prayer life; it forces me to seek God as the source of all comfort.  In fact, the psalmist writes this hum-dinger:  “It was good for me to be afflicted, so that I might learn your decrees.”  (v. 71).  Good?  Good??  GOOD???  Yet, even as I shout “No!” -- I can see God bending my proud heart toward his holy and mysterious will.   I can feel him stretching my compassion for brothers and sisters in hurt.  “I know, O Lord, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me.”  (75).  Is it YOU, Lord?  Are YOU behind this terrible affliction?  And can it truly be a sign of Your “faithfulness”?

This past week it hit me that I have been in mourning (duh).  And it also hit me that this severe grief must somehow end, if I am to embrace the life God has given to me.  As the wise man of Ecclesiastes said, “There is a time for everything…a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance” (Ecc. 3:1,4).  We remember the command to “Rejoice in the Lord always.  I will say it again: Rejoice!”  (Phil. 4:4).  And… we feel guilty. 

My dear friend texted me, “PleaSe please please don’t feel you need to apologize to me [for wailing].  I haven’t been through this exact thing but I definitely know that juxtaposition of having a stone in your heart, sometimes right next to a flying bird.  Joy and horror.”  I liked her analogy so much.  Half of our heart wants to fly, knows it needs to fly, but the other half sinks solidly into the mud.  The tension threatens to shred our fragile faith.

The psalmist has somehow made peace with the bird and the stone.  (It is a very long psalm, after all).  Relentless wailing and relentless rejoicing, one after the other, down through the alphabet.

·         “I rejoice in following your statutes as one rejoices in great riches… Your statutes are my delight… I rejoice in your promise like one who finds great spoil” (14, 24, 162).

·         “I run in the path of your commands, for you have set my heart free… I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts.” (32, 45).

·         “…for I delight in your commands because I love them.  I lift up my hands to your commands, which I love…” (47).

·         “Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous laws.  Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble.” (164-65).

Rejoicing, riches, delight, freedom, love, praise, peace.  All in the context of God’s statutes, promises, commands, precepts and laws.  Affliction draws us back to God’s law, which is our salvation, and our joy.  On this rainy Sunday, I am praying with the psalmist:  “May your unfailing love be my comfort, according to your promise to your servant.”  (76).  May you also find comfort in your afflictions.

All About Love

The themes of Psalm 119 are so inter-woven, it is difficult to dissect one strand from the others.  Those familiar with Shutterfly or other digital scrapbooking tools will understand.  If the slot in the template is in portrait orientation, you can be sure the picture I want is in landscape.  No amount of cropping will provide an accurate account – I have to choose between the dog, the crepe myrtle, or my son Jacob.

 

With that caveat, we might as well start with the theme of love.  After all, “The earth is filled with your love, O Lord” (v. 64).  The Psalmist follows that powerful statement with the request:  “teach me your decrees.” (v. 64).  A non-sequitur?  Perhaps not.  Likewise verse 124:  “Deal with your servant according to your love and teach me your decrees.”  The implication is that God manifests his love to us – makes his love concrete to us – by teaching us his decrees. 

In fact, the Psalmist in several places uses the term “love” interchangeably with terms for God’s law.  For example:  “Hear my voice in accordance with your love; preserve my life, O Lord, according to your laws.” (v. 149).  The “Resh” stanza repeats a similar theme: 

“preserve my life according to your promise” (v. 154); then,

“preserve my life according to your laws” (v. 156); and finally,

“preserve my life, O Lord, according to your love.”  (v. 159). 

Thus, God’s promises, his laws, his love, together, are the means by which God preserves our very lives.  “May your unfailing love come to me, O Lord, your salvation according to your promise.”  (v. 41).  God’s laws contain the promise of his love, as the Psalmist again says:  “May your unfailing love be my comfort, according to your promise to your servant.”  (v. 76)

And what happens when God answers, and sends His unfailing love / law?  The Psalmist exclaims:  “Oh, how I love your law!” (v. 97) And again, “I delight in your commands because I love them.  I lift up my hands to your commands, which I love” (v. 47-48).  The Psalmist loves God’s commands above all else, “more than gold, more than pure gold” (127).  The Psalmist loves God’s law because God has loved him through that law.  And God breathing through the Psalmist creates a new work of love/law. 

This reminds me of my advanced computer science class in college.  At the time, we were learning a language called LISP, which is based on embedded parenthetical expressions and recursion.  It was the programming equivalent of Russian nesting dolls.  With the caveat that I changed my major far away from computer science, as a direct result of this class, I imagine the LISP equivalent of the love theme in Psalm 119 might be

(God (according to ((God’s law (love)) loved by the Psalmist)) sends unfailing love to the Psalmist)

Yes, I double-counted my parentheses.

And in response to the love of the Psalmist, who is responding to God’s love, God sends blessing.  “Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble.” (163)

Cut!  Time for a reality check.  As an attorney, I know first-hand that laws can be frustratingly complex, they can be unfair, they can prevent people from doing what they want to do.  When I look at the California Labor Code, or the Wage Orders of the Department of Industrial Relations, I do not get the warm fuzzies.  What does it mean to love God’s law?

When God issues his love/law, the Psalmist responds with love/obedience.  He says, “Preserve my life according to your love, and I will obey the statutes of your mouth.” (v.  88)  And again, “I obey your statutes, for I love them greatly.”  (v. 167)  We show our love for God’s law by our obedience.  I am thinking about a child of mine, who likes to say “I love you” when he is in trouble.  To which I reply – not very kindly -- “Then do what I tell you to do!!”

There are many reasons to obey God’s law, which I would like to explore in more detail, “if I live and the Lord wills.”  But this is not obedience out of grudging obligation -- of which type I am intimately familiar, both as a parent and an attorney.   No, this obedience springs from the mutual love between God and the Psalmist.

May your unfailing love come to us, O Lord.

Thoughts on Psalm 119 – The Teaser

It’s the longest chapter in the Bible, containing 176 verses.  In the time it takes to recite this Psalm, you can drive from downtown Ruston to the chicken farms of Dubach (and keep the speed limit).  Each of its 22 stanzas contains 8 verses -- do the math -- and is introduced by a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet.  Unfortunately, in translation we miss the wit of the Hebrew acrostic.  But commentators tell us that each verse in a stanza begins with the same letter:  Aleph, Beth, Gimel, and so forth.  I once got ahold of a Hebrew-English interlinear Bible, and I can confirm this is true.  (Hooray for primary sources).  In fact, the alliteration motif is not limited to the first word of each verse:  the psalmist tries to squeeze as many alphabet-words as possible into each set of 8.


Is Psalm 119 the sacred version of “Same song, second verse, a little bit louder and a little bit worse?”  Or maybe “Chicka Chicka Boom Boom”?  Did the ancient Hebrews think it was just a little bit corny?

To the extent you have heard anything about Psalm 119, you have probably heard that it is about God’s word.  The Bible writing about itself – that’s very meta.  Kindof like Japanese anime artists animating about Japanese anime artists (yes, it’s a thing, don’t ask me how I know this).  To be sure, each stanza of Psalm 119 mentions God’s word.  And though translations vary, the Psalm uses about 8 different synonyms for God’s word, including “promise,” “statutes,” “commands,” “law,” “judgments,” “precepts,” and “decrees.”  So you see verses like the following:

Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. (v. 89)

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. (v. 160)

However -- it is wrong to assume that Psalm 119 honors God’s word in the abstract, in a vacuum, on a pedestal.  In fact, I had to search for examples of verses that spoke ONLY of God’s word, above.  In contrast, take the two most familiar verses in the Psalm:

I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you. (v. 11)

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.  (v. 105).

Together, these verses mention God’s word twice.  But they mention something else – someone else – a total of five times.  They mention ME (originally the Psalmist, and now the reader).  I have hidden your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.  Your word lights my feet and my path.  This is not me (the blogger) being a narcissist.  If you go through Psalm 119, you will soon discover that the Psalmist talks about himself as much or more than God’s word.

More accurately, Psalm 119 speaks about the dynamic relationship between the Bible and the Christian.  Far from being a kooky acrostic, Psalm 119 puzzles over the very heart of the Christian life.  What does it mean to live as a believer?  How do we respond when it seems that God does not answer our prayers?  Where do we find the strength to keep on keeping on?  The high vistas, the low valleys, the dusty roads in-between – Psalm 119 has them all covered. 

Perhaps the mnemonics are there because we need them.  Perhaps the clever alphabetizing drills important truths that we are apt to forget.  Perhaps this divine earworm unlocks the mysteries of the Christian life.

If you are interested, I encourage you to read Psalm 119.  It’s OK if you don’t finish.  After all, it’s a long psalm.  I have been working through Psalm 119 since January, so 8 months now.  (And I still have two stanzas left.)  Yet only recently has the Psalm come together for me, so that I feel I have something to share.  It's like kneading flour and water until the gluten strands form and the mixture becomes dough.  Or folding curds and stretching them until they miraculously become mozzarella. 

Lord willing, I will share more soon.

Welcome Morons & Moronettes

I had no idea that OregonMuse would link to my bloglet this morning.  Welcome AOS visitors!

This past summer, our family left the clogged freeways of California to live on a small farm of dubious character.  My husband suggested throwing together a post "How to convert a nice home into a chicken coop."  Unfortunately, any pictures would not do the smell justice. 

I teach political science and practice California law remotely (very remotely).  My husband is the handyman and farm proprietor.  Please leave comments as you feel the spirit move. 

More posts soon!

Twilight: The Gateway to a 50 Shades Relationship?

What do vampires have in common with kinky BDSM?  Apparently, the best-seller 50 Shades of Grey was conceived as Twilight fan fiction.  Although Twilight lacks the explicit themes of 50 Shades, it romanticizes a similarly dangerous relationship.

To summarize (for those who spent the past decade under a rock), Twilight is a romance between Bella, a 17-year-old girl, and her classmate Edward, who happens to be a vampire.  I read Twilight several years ago while on vacation.  The story was engrossing.  But as I was reading, something about the relationship between Bella and Edward kept bugging me.  And it wasn’t the fact that Edward happened to be a vampire.  Everyone knows vampires are pretend!  (right. . . ?) 

No, what bothered me were the parallels between Bella’s story and real-world, dangerous relationships.

1.  Edward had a definite dark side.  He had a bad temper AND he struggled with blood lust.   At the beginning of the relationship, he treated Bella with cruel hostility.  (Was it excusable simply because he was trying to control the impulse to drain her veins?) During key points in their relationship, Edward had Bella walking on eggshells.  Just by being herself, Bella would accidentally trigger Edward’s darker nature. 

2.  Edward was very controlling.  During their “get to know you” conversations, Edward drilled Bella like the Spanish inquisition.  Edward changed his schedule so that they were taking all their classes together.  Edward insisted on chauffering Bella to school, both ways.  He would make fun of her car and refuse to let her drive.  He would take her places against her will (i.e., the prom) even though Bella strongly protested and said she did not want to go.

3.  Edward was extremely jealous and would become angry when he saw other boys becoming close to Bella.  Bella expressed relief that she had not had any former boyfriends, so that she would not have to tell Edward about them.

4.  Edward was a stalker.  He entered Bella’s house without permission.  Using his heightened sense of hearing, he listened in on Bella’s conversations.  He followed her without her knowledge.

5.  Edward held unequal power in the relationship.  He was a beautiful immortal, with super-human strength and speed.  He had unlimited funds.  He had special senses that enabled him to read others’ thoughts.  Bella, on the other hand, was awkward and insecure.  She had just moved to live with her dad and had no close friendships.  Edward would take Bella to remote locations, where she had no means of returning home by herself.  She was totally dependent on Edward.

To his credit, Edward warned Bella that he was not good for her.  Bella’s friends who knew Edward’s identity begged her to stay away from him.  Bella knew that Edward was dangerous, yet she consciously chose to stay with him.  She didn’t care about her human friends, she didn’t even care about her own human life.  She was stubbornly confident that the “love” she shared with Edward would make everything OK.

Putting aside the vampire factor, anyone see a problem with this relationship??  Yet Twilight boldly celebrates the fantasy love between Edward and Bella.  Judging by the sales of books, movies, DVDs – and wildly popular fan fiction spin-offs! -- the continuing Twilight story has captivated millions of girls, and women.

In just a few short years, the young woman’s obsession with Twilight has become the older woman’s obsession with 50 Shades of Grey.  Mothers, grandmothers, teachers, sisters and friends – we need to talk!  We must recognize and teach the signs of a dangerous relationship.  We must not let vampire romance and its fan fiction cloud our judgment. 

Because, in real life, a dangerous relationship is unlikely to resolve in a happy ending.

 

Free Community College (Continued)

In my previous post, I gave four reasons we should oppose "free" community college.  Here are 5 more.

5.  Free Community College Is Not a Universal Solution.  President Obama stated as his goal, “that two years of college becomes as free and universal in America as high school is today.”  (emphasis added).    However, not every job requires higher education, and not every student will benefit from community college.  To support his policy, President Obama claims that, “By the end of this decade, two in three job openings will require some higher education.”  Even assuming this figure is accurate, this means that one-third or more of job openings require NO higher education whatsoever.

6.  Free Community College Excuses Poor Performing High Schools.  Even today, many students use community college as an extension of high school.  They take remedial math and English classes that should have been mastered well before college.  These classes generally do not count toward a college degree.  Would free community college relieve all pressure for our high schools to perform at acceptable levels?  Or perhaps free community college is an admission that our high schools are already inconsistent at preparing students for adult life.

7.  Free Community College Dilutes All Degrees.  We discussed President Obama’s plan for free community college in my political science class.  The students agreed that free stuff is valued less.  They worried that, if a community college degree was "free," would that dilute the value of their degrees?  Will an AA degree become the minimum requirement for entry-level jobs, as high school is today?

8.  Free Community College Encourages Irresponsibility.  My students were concerned that potential employers would not value “free” community college.  I wondered the same thing about the students themselves.  We all know – parents especially – that people appreciate things more when they work for them.   As an example, 20-year-old Joe works in retail, lives in a crappy apartment with 4 other guys, and goes to community college at night.  Joe is paying his own way, perhaps with the help of scholarships and loans.  You can bet that Joe will choose his classes carefully, show up, and study enough to safely pass.  On the other hand, you have 19-year-old Sam.  Sam’s mom expects him to attend community college and pays his tuition.  Since Sam likes living at home (free wi-fi), he reluctantly enrolls.  He picks classes like “History of Rock and Roll” and ceramics.  He sleeps through the lectures, and if he does pass, it is because his professor felt sorry for him.

Of course, some students will be disciplined enough to take full advantage of their education, regardless of whether it is costly or free.   These students probably do not need additional taxpayer help to complete their degrees.

9.  Free Community College Detaches Students from Their Communities. 

As a third example, let’s say Jane enrolls in government-provided, “free” community college.  In some ways, her situation is even worse than Sam’s.  At least Sam has his mom to kick his butt, and perhaps kick him out (someday).  But Jane is not accountable to anyone.  If she picks ridiculous classes, or sleeps through lectures, she does not feel the pinch, and neither do her parents.

To reassure us that this scenario is unlikely, President Obama says, “Understand, you’ve got to earn it – you’ve got to keep your grades up and graduate on time.”  Sam’s mom probably tells him the same thing. But Sam’s mom has more tools at her disposal, both for encouraging Sam and for making his life miserable.  Sam’s mom loves him, and prays for him, and mobilizes other family and friends to support him.  In contrast, the government cares nothing for Jane personally.  It allows Jane to believe that she is independent, slowly eroding her support system.  If Jane fails, her funding ends.  How is Jane better off then? 

Better for Jane to learn responsibility early, by paying as she goes along.  Better for Jane to be depending on family and friends that love her, until she can stand on her own two feet. 

To summarize:  better for Jane and her peers, better for our colleges, better for our high schools, better for our employers, better for our communities, better for our taxpayers and better for our freedoms that community college is NOT free.

Free Community College?

In President Obama’s state of the union address, he said, “… I am sending this Congress a bold new plan to lower the cost of community college — to zero.”  I am a big believer in community college.  In community college, savvy students save substantial sums on their journey to an advanced degree.  Older adults can build second and third careers, and high school goof-offs can get a fresh start.  (My husband rocked all three categories.)

So free community college is a great idea, right?  According to President Obama, “too many bright, striving Americans are priced out of the education they need.  It’s not fair to them, and it’s not smart for our future.”  Who could argue with that?

… Well, me.  Precisely because I believe in community college, I do not believe the cost should be – or could be – “zero.”

1.  Free Community College Is Unnecessary.  Community college tuition is already affordable.  It is easy to find a community college within commuting distance, so you can continue to live at home.  And, if your funds fall short, you can apply for financial aid, student loans and merit scholarships.  With all of the help available, it is hard to imagine any “bright, striving American” actually priced out of community college. 

Some time ago I oversaw a scholarship fund specifically for community college students.  The scholarship had few requirements, and yet we only found one interested student.  Finding money for community college is so simple that the scholarship was almost superfluous.

2.  Free Community College Is Not “Free” (in the Sense of Money).  Someone still has to pay for community college, even if it is “free” for students.  There are only three possibilities for the federal government to finance community college: (1) higher taxes; (2) cutbacks in other areas; or (3) more deficit spending.  None of those are very appealing.

3.  Free Community College Is Not “Free” (in the Sense of Our Liberties).  There is an English proverb along the lines of “He who takes the king's shilling becomes the king's man.”  Grants from the federal government to the states always come with strings attached.  If the federal government pays for community college, you can bet they will regulate who teaches, what is taught, and perhaps even who can enroll.  Common Core for College, anyone?  State and local governments will have less power to tailor their institutions to the needs of the specific community.

4.  Free Community College Is Not Efficient.  When the government pays for something, it takes away free market incentives toward efficiency.  If a student (or her parent) pays for college, they will seek the best value for their dollar.  Colleges know that if they do not provide the best value, the student (or her parent) will take their dollars elsewhere.   This fast and simple feedback between business and consumer drives up quality and efficiency.  Government money breaks this direct line of communication.  Community college would no longer be accountable to the student (or her parent).   An impersonal bureaucracy would make the decisions, motivated by political objectives opaque to the actual students and educators.

To Be Continued...

 

Trading Freedom for Security

In my political science class, we often talk about the role of government in helping people.  To what extent should we depend upon the government to provide goods, services and protection from the harsh corners of life?  This is the heart of today’s political debate.

John Locke, the British doctor and Enlightenment philosopher, did a “thought experiment” about life before government.  I call it a thought experiment, because no one really knows what life before government would be like.  But Locke used his imagination to create a hypothetical scenario where everyone is free and equal, and no one has any authority over anyone else.  He called it the “State of Nature.”

Free and equal sounds great, doesn’t it?  But the state of nature, at least in Locke’s thought world, is inherently unsafe.  It is insecure.  Every person enforces the law as they see fit, and there is no one to protect the interests of the weak impartially.  For this reason, people voluntarily leave the state of nature, and they create government.

When you create government, you give up some of your freedom.   You expect other people to obey the will of the majority, even when they don’t like the result, and likewise they expect you to obey the will of the majority, even when you don’t like the result.  So you are less free.  Nonetheless, you are willing to give up some of your freedom for security.

This is the great trade-off with government:  We give up our freedom, and the government gives us security.  In reality, without at least minimal security, our freedoms are worthless anyway.  If you are in constant danger of being robbed, or being assaulted, how free are you?  Not very.

As government grows, it may promise us more and more security.  It may promise us food when we are poor.  It may promise us income when we are old.  It may promise us healthcare, a cleaner environment, protection from false advertising.  These are lofty and noble goals.  At the same time, it is very important to understand that none of these things are “free,” whether the government provides them, or whether we provide them for ourselves. 

In fact, each and every time we allow the government to provide for us, we give up some of our freedom.   Therefore, if we value our freedom, in each and every instance, we must ask ourselves, what is the value of the trade?  What freedoms am I giving up (they may be hidden), and what am I receiving in return?  Can the government actually deliver on its promises, and even if it can, is it worth the trade?



Trading Freedom for Security.  Is the apple crisp and juicy?  Or is it mealy with worms?