Sand in the Gears

The Cave of the Heart

December 24th, 2013 Posted in The Sermons | Comments Off

Here’s an excerpt from my Christmas Eve post over at Good Letters:

When I read about the boy hiding under his bed, first inviting the world he knew to watch him die, then hiding from it in that darkened place, I thought about the cave where a savior was born. I thought as well about the cave within my own heart, the cave crafted to be filled just as surely as a bucket or a cup or an upturned palm awaits what may fill it.

We all bear this waiting space, and it will be filled, it will be filled. The emptied and darkened places of creation are invitations, and who knows what may enter them, what crawls or slithers into them in the nighttime of the soul, from depth to depth, from dark to dark?

Who knows as well what this boy carried in his heart, what weighted it down, what made his life a dreadful burden to be sloughed off? Absence can be the weightiest of all the heart’s burdens. The cave is in us but we are also in it, as anyone who has ever suffered from deep despair can attest. The hole within threatens to swallow you up.

You can read the rest here. And may the light find you this Christmas as well.

The professor in the home

December 17th, 2013 Posted in The Art of Parenting | 48 Comments »

Every month, money flies from my checking account to the education savings accounts of my children, because I don’t want them to become hobos. This is one way I allay my fear the world will eat them up. It’s a mark of a good parent to worry over where—and whether—his child will go to college, isn’t it?

I need to confess a profoundly un-American heresy: I question what my children will get for the money. I don’t question the value of education (though we make it a panacea for deeper ills of the soul); I doubt the capacity of most educational institutions to impart much beyond what one could obtain with, as the protagonist in Good Will Hunting notes, “a dollar-fifty in late charges at the public library.”

I know there are teachers who can help a student get far more out of Dracula, say, than he might acquire on his own. They can cultivate in him a healthy awareness of the various psycho-sexual literary analytical clubs with which the text has been bludgeoned for decades, for example, or even help him challenge dominant beliefs about what Dracula, and monster literature more broadly, means to us culturally. There are teachers like that; I’ve seen them in action, and they are a heartening, humbling species to behold.

The practical reality, however, is that most educational institutions have no interest in rewarding excellent teachers, or even understanding which of their teachers are truly excellent. They are in the business of slinging feed to cattle. As a consequence, their faculties share no intelligible common convictions, no canon, no sense of responsibility to raise humane citizens. The surest way to get sideways with many of them, in fact, is to posit definitions of “canon,” “humane,” or “citizen.” Heck, just try to define “man” and “woman,” and watch what happens.

Many higher education professionals have nothing coherent to say about what we are, and so the notion that whatever we are might be called to something greater and higher than ourselves, that denying our appetites might be essential to this thing called “virtue,” that there is even such a thing as virtue, rather than a patriarchal phallocentric Western capitalist construct designed for purposes of oppression, and that this virtue is worthy of pursuit and discipleship and discomfort—well, talk like that will get you disinvited from the faculty mixer.

I’m saving money for my children’s “higher education,” and the truth is that it seems shot through with holes. It is an interesting collection of answers to the wrong questions. It is not what I hope for my children, which is cultivation of wisdom, virtue, a spirit of open inquiry, and intellectual rigor.

Lately it’s occurred to me, however, that I’ve been thinking about this wrongly. I’m tempted—many of us are tempted—to think of higher education as something that happens out there, conducted by other people, when our children are older. The reality is, however, that the most important part of it is happening right now, with we parents, every day.

Here’s the thing: I’ve met humble, brilliant kids with Ivy League degrees, and I’ve met clever, insufferable fools with Ivy League degrees. I’ve met thoroughgoing dunces passing time as college students, and in the same classroom, thoughtful world-changers. I know autodidacts who make their livings with their hands, who have no need of college degrees, but whose minds are more unfettered and insightful than that of many a philosophy professor. And of course I know plenty of people who make their livings with their hands and who have no interest in thinking at all.

The chief determinant of a young person’s educational success, in other words, is not the credentialing of the professoriate. It’s the discernment and self-discipline he possesses when he reaches them. Good teachers matter, to be sure. We should find them, and reward them, and send our children to them. But our children must have hearts that seek wisdom. Fools tend to draw fools; the wise tend to draw the discerning. My kids will gravitate to the teachers I have prepared them to learn from.

Which puts me in a pretty spot, now that I think about it—striving to incline their hearts toward wisdom, yet feeling every day like a fool not up to the task. It would be so much easier to keep socking away money every month, and trust someone else to figure it out. But that’s not an option, is it?

UPDATE: Some of you might appreciate the comments on this that have accumulated over at Instapundit. I tried to join in, but I couldn’t figure out how to register to comment. :-/

The obscured man

December 12th, 2013 Posted in The Sermons, Theology | 31 Comments »

This is not a comment about the reasoning of a Slate essayist, who wrote recently that the white Santa is outdated. This is not a comment about the Fox News talking head who took umbrage, asserting that not only Santa, but also Jesus, is white. This is not a comment about the predictable crowds who predictably gathered to hurl predictable barbs, nor even a comment about the lack of grace they afford one another during this season of grace.

This is a comment about who we see when we consider the Christ. When Mary called Magdalene came to his tomb and found it empty, she wept. She wept because, she said, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.”

It would be a fitting reaction, don’t you think, to weep at the thought of people dragging about the body of your savior, that he might suit whatever purposes they have for him? Thank goodness that doesn’t happen today. Thank goodness none of us is guilty of that.

She wept and she turned and she saw him standing near, the God-man who had drawn from her seven demons. She saw him and he asked her why she wept, but she did not recognize his face. How could she have followed him so far, known him so closely, and not recognize him? She did not know who he was until he said her name. He told her who she was, and in doing so, he revealed the truth of himself to her.

Peter and several other disciples had the same experience, near the shore of the Galilean Sea. They did not recognize this man who called to them in their boat. Not until he directed them where to cast their nets, causing them to be filled, revealing himself through a miracle. In their obedience to his direction, they came to know him again.

Christian tradition teaches that we are to understand these failures to recognize Christ as an indication of how profoundly he was changed in resurrection. Having descended into hell, having arisen glorified and uncorrupted, he had become a forerunner of what we are promised. He became what we are to become, but from whom we live, most of us, at such a great and tragic distance.

So you see, it doesn’t matter what Jesus looked like before his work at Golgotha. Anyone who wants to place some ethnic or racial claim on him, to subtly draw him toward their favored group, or tug him away from some disfavored group, is missing the whole point. We are none of us like him.

Not a one is like him, and yet we are called to be like him, to pick up our crosses and labor up that hill, labor past earthly gain and glory, past respectability, past career success and collegial esteem, past praise from the clever. We are called to go to death ourselves, to lay down these mean-spirited and self-seeking lives, that we might be cloaked in the selves we were meant to be from the beginning.

The question is not: Who did Jesus look more like? The question is: Why don’t I look more like Jesus?

And the place to look for an answer is the heart. We do not look like him because our hearts are not inclined toward him. Which is why so often we don’t recognize him, even when we look him full in the face, even when we cradle his words in our hands, even when we bow our head toward an empty cross and whisper how great is our love for him.

Christ icon


December 9th, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life, The Art of Parenting | 49 Comments »

My mother died while I was at the beach and so while my children spent their days on the shore, I spoke by phone with the many professionals who position themselves between the living and the dead.

My thirteen year-old wanted to build a sandcastle. He has so many preoccupations these days, perhaps chief among them sleep, but this is what we do at the beach, what we have done since he was a baby and could only pat pat pat the sand while I did all the building.

He waited for me one afternoon, waited by the door as I dealt with each call that I promised was the last call, waited with his eyes alternating between me and the ocean outside our windows. He waited until I realized that whatever I might do for my mother in her death would not be, in her estimation, worth making her oldest grandson wait one more minute to build our sandcastle.

So we went down to the sand, and we organized his younger brothers, and we began to build. We are an experienced crew, and everyone knows his part. We build the drainage trenches, the retaining wall, the secondary walls. We build a raised platform in the center, upon which we array the battlements, the buildings, the inner fortress. We build as it might have been had labor not been transmogrified into toil, scooping pliant earth and fashioning with our hands as we have been fashioned.

An old man walks past. He shakes his head. “You’re building below the high-tide line.” He shakes his head and continues down the beach.

We know we are building below the high-tide line and we know the waves are coming. We build here because this is where the castle can be built. The sand is no good above the high-tide line. We build our trenches and our retaining wall. We race against waves that threaten to sweep over our work before it is done.

“Don’t decide to do something based on whether it’s possible,” I tell my nine year-old. “Do it because it’s worth doing.”

I often say things like this to my sons. I know they don’t hear most of it, but I say it anyway, because I want to believe that one day they will remember some of it.

We build the walls higher, we dig the trenches deeper as they are overwhelmed and filled with watery sand. When the waves are especially full we lay down in front of our creation to protect it. We get so busy protecting this thing that will be washed away regardless of our best efforts, that we almost forget the important parts—the buildings, the inner fortress, the church. We build them and I fashion a cross for our church with grass and driftwood.

These days we tell children they can do anything. We tell them this because it makes us feel good, I suppose. We lie to them even as we make their education a practicum in practicality. Every book, every class, every grade has but one aim, which is to secure a good job with good pay and good benefits.

You can do anything you put your mind to—now put your mind to the very practical and possible.

I suppose I am teaching my sons the opposite. You discover the path for which you have been crafted not by calculating what is practical, but by divining what lights up the truest place within your heart. Sometimes that means doing what cannot be done. You have to do it because no one else will, and because some things are worth doing not only badly but hopelessly. Faithfully and hopelessly and with confidence that the hopeless cause is sometimes the most important cause.

Our castle was gone by morning. I imagine the sand grains that comprised it are scattered along the eastern seaboard, on the shore and in the depths, some of it in shoe treads and in the corners of houses. The castle is gone and there is nothing left of the castle, of any of the dozens of castles I have made with my children. The castles are scattered grit—as one day I will be too—and there is nothing left of them to contribute to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product or to the academic resumes of my children. They cannot be dwelt in nor sold; the modern ways of assessing merit can take no accounting of them.

We built them below the high-tide line knowing it was hopeless. We built them below the high-tide line because this was the only place to build them. We built them because this is what we were crafted to do.

Buket and spade on Killahoey Strand - - 1426946

It doesn’t come with a parking spot, but it’s still pretty darn nice

December 5th, 2013 Posted in The Artful Life | 3 Comments »

The good people at Image Journal have named me their artist of the month. I like being reminded that writers are artists, and I’m honored to be included among the many fine artists—of all stripes—who have been similarly recognized by Image in the past. Here’s an excerpt from the kind things they say about me:

As editors we sometimes encourage writers who seem too closed to “open a vein” and bleed on the page a little. Tony has never needed to hear that advice, but he also writes with a tough-mindedness, an earthiness, and a serious theological underpinning that save his work from feeling like unformed confessional soup. He’s too frank for the reader to feel sorry for him. He’s capable of provoking a much deeper kind of empathy, and of getting us to look at things we might rather turn away from.

They’re being overly kind—I can remember on at least one occasion an editor emailing to ask, in his gentle, roundabout way: “Dude, are you okay?”

And the answer is yes. More yes than in a long, long time.

If you want to read the rest, which isn’t just flattering stuff they say about me, but an update on some of my writing projects, and an excerpt from one of my short stories, you can click here.

The last shall be on page three

November 28th, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life | 4 Comments »

The folks at National Review Online asked me for my favorite Thanksgiving tradition and so now there it sits amongst the ruminations of people mostly more famous than me. It’s at the very bottom of the last page, like how they save the biggest rocket for the very end of the fireworks display. Or like how it works out when they organize things alphabetically and your last name is “Woodlief.” Anyway, here’s an excerpt:

“We read somewhere that the Pilgrims survived on a few kernels of corn and were thankful, so we settled on an exquisite Thanksgiving torture wherein we set bowls of steaming, buttered, gravy-addled food in front of our children who have been begging to be fed for hours, and make them name their blessings before they can eat. One blessing for each kernel surreptitiously placed on your plate while you were hovering about the stove threatening to die if you didn’t get a spoonful of mashed potatoes right now.”

You can read the rest here. Don’t forget to scroll down. And Happy Thanksgiving. Meaning you should give thanks, no matter how crummy things feel. Not because you have a lot more good things, and a lot less suffering, than most people in the world, but because the good things you have are a gift. Even if you acquired them by dint of your cleverness and labor and charm, those qualities are themselves a gift, and if you aren’t thankful for them, if you begin to think they sprang from you, from the very precious and uniquely predestined wonder of you, then they will become curses. Trust me.

Thus endeth the sermon. Enjoy the turkey.

November 20th, 2013 Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Those of you who read what I scribble here and elsewhere know I nurse a few curious theories about science, like that it ought to remain distinct from scientism, and that the scientific process taught in schools is hokum, and that reductionism is just as nonsensical when it comes to dominate the physical sciences as it is in the realms of literature or theology.

Therefore, you can sort out for yourselves whether you anticipate with dread or delight my latest essay at the Image “Good Letters” blog. Here’s an excerpt:

I get the feeling, however, that the scientific method, rather than being one avenue by which we may come to know something, has become the only respectable avenue. I suppose it’s helpful for scientists to confirm that most people prefer mates who are sexually attractive, or that exercise is good for you, or that bullies pick on unpopular kids—each being a finding reported in science journals in recent years—but was our knowledge of these facts less valid before scientists undertook to measure them?

. . . Nobody is saying we should run an abuse victim through an MRI, give her a calibrated pharmaceutical cocktail, and call her cured. At least not yet. But the danger with privileging scientific findings is that it tempts us to think what we can know most concretely is therefore what’s most important to know. It reduces people to a single dimension, rendering them nothing more than amusing sacks of chemical combinations. Scan the brains of enough abuse victims, perhaps include their spines, maybe for good measure, the electromagnetic impulses cast off by their entire central nervous system working in concert, and pretty soon you forget that they have souls, and likely distorted notions of God and self.

You can read the rest here.

Eulogy for Mama

October 11th, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life, The Sermons | 13 Comments »

My mother was born on April Fool’s Day, and I know there were times when she felt like the world was playing a joke on her.

A more selfish woman might have considered me such a joke. My mother was drawn to performance art—dancing, theater, music. As you can see from the front of your program, she was a beautiful woman. My brothers and I are proof that good looks often skip a generation.

I came along when my mother had other plans for her life, but she chose to set her plans aside so that I might have life. She became a nurse, and began a career of caring for others. She had sick people to care for at work, and soon she had three boys to care for at home.

When I frustrated her, my mother would wish a curse on me: “I hope you have three redheaded daughters and I hope they’re all just like you.”
Llana Woodlief
I don’t know why she wished daughters on me; it seemed to me that three boys were curse enough. I remember that poor woman dragging us along to the grocery store. She’d threaten all kinds of damnation if we didn’t behave this time, and we’d all nod and promise to behave, and then as soon as we got inside and she turned her head we were off to the races. Running up and down the aisles, knocking things over, tackling each other. Eventually a manager would get hold of us and demand to know where our mother was. God bless her, my mother always claimed us.

It seems like right and wrong are confusing ideas to people these days, but Mama had an understanding of justice in her bones. I remember once when I was little I fell asleep in her bed, and I woke to the sound of her crying. She was watching the local news, and it showed men standing in the parking lot of our local library. Some of them wore white sheets, and others wore Nazi uniforms, and they were shouting.

She wrote a letter to the newspaper about these men, and the newspaper published it. Not long after, angry people started calling our house. One time I got to the phone before my mother, and a woman asked me: “What’s your mama’s problem with the Klan?”

Mama took the phone from me. I don’t know who that woman was, but I can tell you that she should be thankful my mother couldn’t yank her through the phone line.

Years later I wrote something that ended up making a bunch of neo-Nazis angry. They got hold of pictures of me and my children and posted them on their Nazi website. Mama fussed at me that I was going to write something that would get me shot. But she sounded proud when she said it. My mother always found things to be proud of us for.

One thing not a lot of people know is that she wrote a song. It was a country song, and some local musicians started playing it, and for a while it was popular in some local bars. I remember thinking that maybe my mother would become like Barry Manilow and we’d all get rich off the songs she’d write. I asked her if she was going to write more songs, and she said: “I don’t know if I have another song in me.”

I think my mother had a great many songs in her. I think maybe I just didn’t do a very good job of listening to them.

St. Paul wrote in his last letter, as he waited for execution: “For I am already being poured out like a drink offering.” That verse always makes me think of my mother. She poured herself out for us, for her patients. She didn’t choose the easy rotations; she chose to work with the dying. She ruined her back caring for them. She endured decades of great pain because she chose to pour herself out. We have the wrong heroes these days. The real heroes are too busy to primp for television cameras.

Mama never took care of herself as well as she took care of everyone else. The most selfish thing I can remember her doing is hiding from me and my brothers in the bathroom so she could eat a candy bar. I don’t know how such an unselfish woman ended up with such a selfish son. Maybe that was one of life’s April Fool’s jokes. Or maybe God foresaw how selfish I would be, and knew I would need her example to overcome it.

She didn’t take care of herself very well, but God gave her people, especially in the last years of her life, who took care of her. Her grandson Isaac wrote a letter, years ago, saying he was praying she would quit smoking. She read that letter and put away her cigarettes for good.

And then there was Sam. Some of my friends think my mother was some kind of wild woman, moving all the way across the country to Santa Monica to live with an Englishman. It wasn’t a wild decision at all. Sam made her smile, and he promised to take care of her. That’s a simple promise to make, but a hard one to live up to.

Sam lived up to it, and I believe that despite all the pain she lived with, these past nine years were some of the happiest in her life. Thank you for giving her that gift, Sam.

She was a far better mother than I was a son, and in the past year I didn’t stay in touch well. The thing is, you always think you’ll have more time. You’d think I would have learned my lesson with my daughter’s passing, but I still haven’t learned it. You always think you have more time, and then you learn that time doesn’t belong to you, it’s something on loan to you, and it is a precious thing, and once you’ve squandered it you can never, ever get it back.

There are things I wish I could ask my mother. Things that will have to wait. I want to ask her if she ever wrote any more songs. I used to think that what they play on the radio must be the best there is, but now I suspect our best songs are the ones people write and tuck away in the back of a book, or the bottom of a drawer.

I want to ask her if she ever picked any more fights with Nazis, and if this is why she liked the Indiana Jones movies so much.

I want to ask her the words to a song she used to sing when she would give me a bath. I can remember the sound of her voice singing it, but I can’t remember the words.

I want to ask her if she knows, in spite of all my mistakes, that I love her.

But there’s one thing I don’t have to ask my mother. One thing none of us need ask, because she showed it a thousand ways, when she was happy and when she was mad and when she was quiet. The one thing we never have to ask is whether she loved us.

This world didn’t give my mother what she deserved. Sometimes it played pranks on her. Even now, I’m fighting with half the bureaucrats in the state of California about retrieving her remains. She’s probably chuckling at the fact that she’s missing her own funeral. “It figures,” she’d probably say.

This world didn’t give my mother all she deserved, but she gave it, and hundreds of people in it, far more than we deserved. She gave more than she took. Her life has been weighed in the balance, and now it is taken from us, and it is we who are found wanting. It is I who am found wanting.

This world didn’t give her all she deserved, but in the world to come, all those wrongs are set right. The book of Revelation promises:

“And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

That promise was for Llana Harley Woodlief, and on September 30th of this year she laid hold of it. In the words of St. Paul, she fought the good fight, she finished the race, she kept the faith.

And now she looks on with that great cloud of witnesses, and she probably thinks I should stop blubbering. But I’m sure she’s also encouraging each of us to finish the race as well. We could do worse than to follow her example.

Imagination destruction

September 23rd, 2013 Posted in The Art of Parenting | Comments Off

The latest Conversations on Philanthropy is hot off the presses, and if you subscribe you’ll soon have a copy in the mail. If not, however, and you’re just dying to read my review of Anthony Esolen’s Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child, then you can click here.

If you’re not sure about clicking, here’s an excerpt:

The imagination of young people, it would seem, is in no danger of going away; if anything, one might be forgiven for thinking it could stand a good backhand. Many adolescents, in fact, live in a world of fantasy that encourages stupid choices and, eventually, crushed expectations.

Anthony Esolen’s Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child, then, seems a welcome tonic. It appears we need to do some imagination destroying, and to replace what we level with common sense.

But wait—Esolen offers his book Screwtape-style, with an authorial voice that encourages readers to truncate the dangerous imaginations of their young charges, lest they grow up to be independent adults. What emerges from Esolen’s ironic treatment is a clarification that the baseless dreaming of the sort one often encounters among young people, as it turns out, is not imagination run amok, but a narcissistic self-absorption that crowds out genuine imagination, which Esolen might define as man’s inherent tendency to understand his place in creation, to grapple for truth, and to craft beauty within the context of being himself a created being.

Good guy or bad guy?

September 20th, 2013 Posted in The Art of Parenting, The Sermons | 15 Comments »

One of my sons asked about an historical figure, or maybe it was some living politician whom history will soon forget. My son wanted to know whether this man was a good guy, or a bad guy.

This is our most fundamental typology for strangers. For all others, it is blood and love. Are you in my family? Are you steadfast in our little platoon? Will you come when I call? Do you love me?

We’ll tolerate many evils from the ones who answer yes. Some of us tolerate evils long after that inward, knowing part of the heart realizes they are lying, that they are no more steadfast for our little platoon than the politician whose television ads claim he dwells in our communities, considers us family, loves us.

There are the people who share our blood, and there are the people we hope love us, and then there are the rest of them. And something in us or about us leads our children to ask: “Dad, is he a good guy, or a bad guy?”

And what do you say?

It was easier when I believed God had sorted all this out in advance. I may not have been able to discern who was chosen or damned (though I had my suspicions), but I could rest in the assurance that people were becoming, in the (sometimes misapplied) words of C.S. Lewis, “immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.”

My answer, then, might have been: “We’ll know in heaven,” by which I would have meant that we would find out the truth of each person’s nature. Good people can do bad things, to be sure, just as bad people sometimes do good. But in each case, I believed, they are acting against their natures. There’s charity and hardheartedness in that view, in equal measure.

But that was just a peculiarity of a particular theological sect. It gave me reasons to embrace the inclination I think most of us harbor, which is to separate people by dark and light. A great many of us find ourselves asking: “Is he a good guy, or a bad guy?” Often I find my thoughts drawn to these words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in The Gulag Archipelago:

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

My answer to my son, then, is borne not so much from psychology or history or even theology as it is from confession. Is that man good or evil? Like the rest of us, child, he’s both.

My son nodded, considering this. I think he’s still considering it. I want to believe he’ll consider it all his days, while working out his own salvation with fear and trembling, which amounts to nothing more than pushing that line stretched taut across his heart steadfastly into the darkness, enlarging the space where sacrificial love resides, diminishing the malevolence that strains with all its might to make the whole human heart its cancerous domain. And which sometimes succeeds, which is why we believe in monsters.

Is that man good, or evil? Which am I? I am both.

And so are you.

But today we will try our best to live in the light.

How we talk about good and evil

August 28th, 2013 Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Those of you who caught my first essay, in which I argued that the layman no longer has adequate language to discuss good and evil, and who did not subsequently spit out your coffee while sputtering with outrage, might appreciate the second essay, in which I suggest how we might return to a language of good and evil, by returning first to a language of love. Here’s an excerpt:

Science can certainly give us the means to illuminate many corners of a darkened world, just as it can give us the means to sterilize a boy whose brain is not suitable to yield the happiness Richard Feynman equated with knowledge, and to ration organs so that only the mentally fit receive them. But can it tell us what to think of such acts?

You can read the rest here.

Words for Good and Evil

August 22nd, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life | 3 Comments »

The thing is, I’d rather write screenplays. Actually, I’d like to write novels that become screenplays. Or short stories that get spun into TV series. (Did you know that “Justified” is based on an Elmore Leonard story?)

The other thing—one of the other things—is that sometimes I’ll read or hear something that sticks in my brain like someone stabbed me with a bicycle-wheel spoke, and I’ll walk around trying to mind my own business, but I’ll keep brushing up against things with that spoke poking out of my head, and the more I try to forget it, the more things that are the regular traffic around my ears—news stories and my children telling me important things about their bottle-cap collections and voicemails from work and the sound of the air conditioning kicking on—well, all of it keeps slapping into that bloody spoke until I root it out by setting down some words.

This is why, often against my better judgment, I’ll write something about why our churches are a mess, or the lunacy of fashionable views on sexuality, or the precise trajectory of Western civilization’s descent into therapeutic suicide. It’s not that I think all of you don’t KNOW these things, after all. It’s just that I need to organize the thoughts collecting around the business end of that spoke, and give them some direction on a page, if only so I can extract it from my brain and be about the business of loving my children and earning a living and writing short stories that don’t have enough angsty 20-something post-abortion lesbian art-student protagonists to ever have hope of being published in fancy journals, but which someone, somewhere, might still appreciate reading.

All of this is to say that maybe some of you will appreciate my essay on a problem that perhaps you have noticed too, which is that when great tragedy strikes, or great evil is undertaken by people who pretend it is good, the average man doesn’t know, any more, how to talk about it. I think this is a bad thing. Do you?

Here’s an excerpt from the essay, which is at Good Letters:

We chatter about the psychological and sociological and political origins of school shootings and soldier suicides and the sexual deviancy of congressmen, our words neglecting a quiet truth that has no place in the conversation of the twenty-first-century West—because it is not a fact that can be measured like the weight of a carbon molecule or the earnings of Ford Motor Company—namely, that we are sick in our very souls, were sickened soon after we began, and will only grow sicker so long as we entertain the fantasy that we are each of us no more than watches that must be occasionally adjusted.

“The traditions,” wrote Viktor Frankl in 1962, “which buttressed [man’s] behavior are now rapidly diminishing.” We are falling, Frankl contended, into an “existential vacuum.” Absent traditions to guide behavior, man “either wishes to do what other people do or he does what other people wish him to do.” Man loses, in this vacuum, his sense of worthwhileness. Little wonder that he loses his sense of others’ worth as well.

It’s the first of two essays, and you can read the rest of it here.

The lost conservative mind

August 19th, 2013 Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

I recently read Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind, and composed a thought about it in relation to the state of this country, which perhaps more than ever before mirrors the state of man today—outwardly self-reliant, inwardly flailing. My thought is that we are yanking free the anchors, worrying loose the cables, and where once this was effected with radical fervor, it’s now a consequence of indolence, of decay, of corruption.

Our politics are dominated by preeners who speak as utopians and govern as apparatchiks. Our news is delivered by people who understand little of what they attempt to relate. Our children are instructed by dullards. Our churches continue to splinter, our civil bonds disintegrate, and an appalling number of adults choose either to murder their children in the womb or abandon them at birth.

Russell Kirk’s book is important because it can help us understand why the institutions we no longer value are in fact critical to the survival of what we do still care about. He does little to explain, however, how they might be regained when they are shattered, or what is to be done when a majority of the populace neither understands, values, nor even longs for them. Perhaps this is because when he wrote, there was still hope of restoring reason and order to the U.S., perhaps even to England. What he didn’t anticipate is that the political and business leaders who rushed to the banner of conservatism in his time would be unworthy, and ultimately prove themselves venal, ignorant, and self-seeking.

“In every period,” Kirk writes, “some will endeavor to pull down the permanent things, and others will defend them manfully.” Even without the pulling at foundations daily attempted by our nation’s cold-souled bureaucrats and administrators, the permanent things have begun to collapse under their own weight. Who will build them again? That’s the question now.

Years ago I offered a confession that conservative Christians might benefit from praying, and earlier this year I offered political conservatives encouragement. Had I read Kirk sooner, I might have had a better sense to whom I was actually writing, namely the people who flit in and out of the tribe known as Conservatives (I include myself in that number) without understanding what we are for, and therefore what we must be against, and what all of this means for what must be done.

On concession

August 7th, 2013 Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Some of you may like my latest essay on the Image “Good Letters” channel at Patheos. Others of you may hate it with a fiery burning hatred. Here’s an excerpt:

It was an offering. I understand why you are afraid of men who look like me. All he asked in return was an equivalent offering. Please understand how it makes us feel when you make no effort to hide what you think of us.

It wasn’t going to make the strident voices on either side happy, but it was the right thing to say. Admitting this doesn’t require you to endorse his policy on killing people with drones, or embrace Obamacare, or approve of how the National Security Agency amasses mobile phone information. You don’t have to agree with anything else he stands for to acknowledge the fundamental decency in President Obama’s statement.

You can read the rest here. There’s a curse word in it. Forgive me. It was apt.

Against being against epiphanies

July 16th, 2013 Posted in The Artful Life | 1 Comment »

Some of you may like my latest essay on the Good Letters channel at Patheos. It covers everything from Oliver Stone to a young Whittaker Chambers, with a slight dose of literary criticism mixed in. Here’s an excerpt:

I’ve been reading recently published short fiction—in journals, in anthologies. It seems that everyone took Baxter to heart. Perhaps I just got a bad batch, but it seems the order of the day is muddy ambivalence. How do I feel about my mother? My abortion? My boyfriend who is kind of there but kind of not? I don’t really know and I don’t know if I care.

Every protagonist seems medicated, every impulse dulled. I read one story that ended like that season of Dallas when they shot J.R.—this was all in my imagination. I read another that ended almost literally in mid-action.

I get it; I get it. Life is an accumulation of regrets. Your father probably will die before you set aside time to hash things out. Many of our deliberated actions arehalf-hearted or unsure or aborted. We stumble over ourselves and think we know things that later we don’t know and then we forget that we ever thought we knew them. Life is a big goddamned mess.

And yet…

You can read the rest here.

Gentle disagreement

June 25th, 2013 Posted in Theology | 1 Comment »

I’ve been wrestling for weeks with how to be at peace with fellow Christians who also happen to be harmfully heretical (and popular) teachers. On the one hand, we’re all supposed to love one another and get along. On the other hand, love doesn’t dictate that we pretend a donkey is a unicorn, at least not when we’re dealing with full-grown educated adults who ought to know better.

I realized that if nothing else I have to get my own heart, and the tone that proceeds from (and reveals) it right. I wrote some things about one highly popular Emergent Church fellow some months back, and I’m convinced that every word was true (in a nutshell, that his theology is that the only parts of the Bible that are relevant today are the parts Jesus said), but I know from some reactions that the words were strident and unloving, which means they fall flat with the very people I’d like to reach with them.

And maybe it doesn’t matter; the Relevant Magazine/Emergent Church/Sola Scriptura Rubra nexus will collapse under its own unrealized expectations of a brave new Christianity one day, and that day of dogmatic reckoning likely won’t be hastened by anything I have to say.

But this is something I’m trying to sort through all the same, if only to work out my salvation with more fear, more trembling, because I’m entirely too satisfied with being right, and the impetus to argue ought to be concern for the other, not esteem for the self.

All of which is to say that in my rumination I spent some time in the gospel of Luke, and ended up writing a little essay for my friends at Good Letters, and I thought you might like to take a look. Here’s an excerpt:

There are many ways to be with us, Christ says, but if you are not with Me, you are against Me. The us part is determined by the Him part. The unauthorized man waging war against demons wasn’t a disciple, wasn’t an official Christian, per se, but he had seen this God-man reclaim people from the evil one, and so with a heart of faith and compassion he was doing the same. The disciples wanted this to be about their exclusive club, whereas Christ made it about faith.

Abide with Me and you will be with us.

We are creatures prone to enmity, however, and so we tacitly subvert this guidance.Fit into our church if you want to be with Him. We make allegiance to our petty little tribes the standard for others, as if we control the doorway to heaven’s kingdom. We ask: “Are you with us, or against Him?” It’s far easier, you see, than answering the question put to each of our lives: be thou with Me?

You can check out the rest of it here.


June 5th, 2013 Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Finally, fiction from me that doesn’t involve death or melancholy or predestination or anything else likely to induce heavy drinking. It’s all dialogue, and I wrote it years ago whilst sitting utterly uninspired and bored in a large corporate bureaucracy. And the good people at Work Literary Magazine saw fit to publish it. Here’s an excerpt:

“But you don’t feel fit for work.”

“Exactly. That is precisely the problem, don’t you see? I feel fit, but I have absolutely no interest in my job today. The very thought of it numbs my soul.”

“Look bud, nobody’s interested. I double-majored in literature and philosophy in college. You think I’m interested in hearing about people’s sinus infections and divorce court hearings and parent-teacher conferences? You think I spend my spare time going up to strangers on street corners, and asking them about all the crappy little details of their existence? I get the dregs of people’s lives, my friend, and let me tell you, it’s sure not out of interest on my part. You want to know why I do it?”

“Actually, I am kind of curious.”

“Because it’s my J-O-B, pal. That thing I do to support myself. Interest has nothing to do with it.”

“But don’t you think it should? My God, you of all people should be with me on this. Shouldn’t your work hold some interest for you? Can’t you see what I’m getting at?”

“Yes, it’s all very charming and existential. But get over it. Being uninterested is just not a reason for not working. If you want to take a personal vacation day that’s fine, and I’m with you one hundred percent, but I’m not going to enter ‘uninterested.’”

“What difference does it make to you anyway? Why are you being so deliberately difficult?”

“Look, if I don’t assign you to a recognized category, then I have to type up a report and put it in our ‘Reconcile’ folder. Then in our Friday staff meeting I’ll have to explain to everyone why it didn’t fit into one of the existing categories. Then everyone in the meeting will argue about whether you took vacation, or ran errands, or had a sick day, until all the doughnuts are gone. In the end it will go into one of those categories anyway, because in my four years on this job, we have yet to add a fourth category. The only difference between me deciding right now versus them deciding on Friday is that doing it your way makes me look like an idiot who can’t make a decision.”

 You can read the rest here.

The difference between being blessed and being spared

June 4th, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life | 3 Comments »

Some of you may like my latest Good Letters post. Here’s an excerpt:

This quiet slaughter is perhaps the greatest perversion wrought by the devil after the fall. The most innocent among God’s most favored creation, cut down by a world in turmoil and rebellion, often by the hands of those who ought rightly be their protectors. Most of us are spared these horrors, and one shudders to think what would become of our churches, our sleeve-worn “faith walks,” if our society were as deeply penetrated by suffering and loss as those across much of the planet.

You can read the rest here.

Sheep and wolves

April 24th, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life, The Art of Parenting | 10 Comments »

Because I am a father I think about the parents of that boy torn to pieces, of his sister whose leg was taken. I think about those parents in Newtown, whose biggest Christmas purchases were coffins for their sons and daughters. I think on the parents of the killers, too, and sometimes I am afraid, because they always seem shocked, and maybe they really didn’t know what evil had taken root in their families, which means I may not know, nor you either.

We fear they will be slaughtered sheep and we fear they will become wolves, and we feel helpless.

Some of us celebrated the capture of a Boston bomber because now we get to kill him. We celebrate because our yearning for vengeance runs deep, and our desire to know that we are not ourselves monsters runs deeper. That boy is a monster and so is the one who murdered all those children in Connecticut and so is the one who gunned down people in a Colorado movie theater. Something in them is broken and they are not human.

We need to believe this. We need to kiss our children as they sleep, and know they are normal, that it’s the severely broken who do unspeakable things, and our own can’t be broken like that because even now we would know, we would peer into their eyes and see the deadness there and we would know.

Instead we see their eyes filled up with love and so they can’t be monsters, not now or ever, because monsters could never have loved anyone, not even their own mothers and fathers.

Their mothers and fathers. What hell must it be, to gaze at a picture of your child, and know it would have been better had you strangled him in his crib? What hell to wonder what you did wrong, to wonder if he was always broken or if it was you who broke him, to wonder if this blood is on your hands, if the fires of hell burn hot for the child you wrongly raised?

What hell, what hell, and if all this doesn’t keep you on your knees for your children then you haven’t considered what world awaits them, how it hungers to make them wolves and slaughtered sheep in equal measure.

This world hungers, and we parents weep, and we pray that our pleading is heard, that if there is something in us that can be altered so they can be spared, God will alter it; that if our flesh might be torn in place of theirs, God might rend it; that if sheep must be slain, God will pass over our own, because the cost is more than we can bear.

For years, his demons made the boy tear his own clothes, hurl himself into the fire, leap into the sea’s deep waters. For years, his father kept him close, no doubt despite those who hissed in his ear: “This is because of your sin.” Religious experts couldn’t help the boy, priests couldn’t save the boy. That boy was helpless and without hope and still his father persevered, even where others would have let him perish, or would have bound him in a graveyard like the Gadarenes.

Then comes this roving, raving miracle-worker, and the father says to him: “But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” The father is weary and wary. He has seen miracle-workers before.

“If you can believe,” Christ replies, “all things are possible to him who believes.”

If. Who hasn’t lain awake at night, tormented by this if? We want to believe there is a good God who can spare our children the horrors of these recent days. Yet this same God allowed horrors for those parents, for their children. The gulf of if is wider than faith, sometimes.

“Lord,” cries the father, “I believe; help my unbelief!”

This is every parent, each of us believing our children will be safe, each of us struggling against the fear they will be anything but safe. We believe and we disbelieve and we pray the kingdom of heaven comes soon, for it belongs to such as these, and we who are no longer children have made such a wreck of it. We pray he will remember our children, that he will save them in spite of us. We pray in belief and we pray against disbelief, and we pray that he is listening.

Everybody dance now

April 18th, 2013 Posted in The Artful Life | Comments Off

Some of you may like my latest essay, “Art as a Common Gift.” Here’s an excerpt:

Imagine that. Millions of people, many of them knowing not the first words of orthodox praise, harboring scant knowledge of theology, yet all of them whispering back to the whisper within their spirits, imitating the God they may only know, many of them, as the urge to arrange words in verse, the craving to strum a power chord with the amp cranked up high, the yearning to dance because sunlight has come pouring through the windows in a slant that overwhelms our adult insistence on having a reason for joy.

What ought to make us weep are not scores of sentimental poetry blogs, but the crowds of teenagers who neither read nor write, who consume one another in gossip and scarcely articulate conversation, who create nothing and feel no yearning to create.

You can read the rest here.

The lies in truth

April 10th, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life | 21 Comments »

Michelle Obama called herself a “single mother” last week and we’ll probably be hearing about it years from now. Some Obama opponents consider it evidence the president is an absentee father, others that he’s gay, others simply that the Obamas don’t understand the plight of single mothers. Here’s proof, thousands told themselves, of what Obama really is.

Mitt Romney referred to “binders of women” considered for government positions, and it was proof of his latent paternalism, his sexist treatment of women as objects to be stored away until useful in the schemes of men. Now we know what Romney really believes.

We love this game. Maybe it’s an enduring fascination with detective stories, or the persistent influence of Freudianism. Maybe it’s the notion among journalists that real reporting is unearthing some reeking black secret, rather than learning enough about their subject to explain it well. Maybe it’s just that ugly little things buried in the souls of others make our own souls feel less sullied.

Whatever the impetus, we all know the game, which is to dissect a person’s words in order to reveal hidden truths. Journalists do it. Politicians do it. Preachers do it. Lawyers excel at it. If we can’t find an outright slip of the tongue, we’ll just yank some words out of their context, or extract them from a moment of weakness or anger.

When the opportunity arises, I show my sons how a lie can be told with the truth. “Your brother just called you ‘the worst brother in the world,’” I’ll note, “but he was smiling when he said it. Would you be lying if you told someone tomorrow that your brother called you that?”

“No. But also yes.”

“That’s right. We can report exactly what someone said, and be liars in the process.”

They nod. I tell them about Satan, using that favored method of modern theologians, prooftexting, to tempt Christ to hurl himself from the heights. Christ’s reply illustrates that when we offer a truth absent its counterpart, we are simply telling a clever lie.

In which case we’re all liars, every child of God and the devil, because we’ve all uttered, more often than we care to admit, truths without their counterparts.

My friend lied about me (and stood up for me when other people said I was a jerk).

My father ignored me (and kept food on the table and a roof over my head).

My daughter never calls (and she’s taking care of two toddlers day and night).

My pastor’s sermons are so judgmental (and he is the first one there when someone is gravely sick or dying).

There is ugliness in everyone, and there is the light of God, and maybe the part we choose to see says more about us than it does our target. We see the worst in people we don’t like because it’s not enough that they be wrong, we need them to be evil, because if they are evil then we are good, and each of us desperately wants to be on the side of the angels, if only because, deep down, each of us knows how often he’s aided demons.

Grace is in order. Would it make a man less wrong, or me more right, if I point out his error without making him the devil, too? No, but giving that up means I’m no longer coasting on the false sainthood called Not Being Them. It means I’m back to working out my own salvation with fear and trembling.

Which is probably where each of us needs to be, working out his own salvation, rather than searching for signs that his enemies have forsaken theirs.

Benediction from a bad man

April 1st, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life | 28 Comments »

I guess I stopped writing about personal things here because I didn’t like the person I had become. I felt stupid, the faith and family writer who gets divorced. This was compounded by coming to DC and finding myself—though alongside very decent and honorable people—exposed as well to a few ugly people for whom gossip and career knee-capping are sport. Aggravating this vulnerability was a confession gone awry, with details passed to people whose good opinion I often coveted but never earned.

Deadened by a toxic mix of drinking, self-pity, and stressful work, I felt too stupid and unworthy to speak. Maybe I still am. Someone like me doesn’t have any authority to hold forth on what Christ really meant, or how a life should be lived, or what it is to love rightly.

If you want to hear about failure, though, I am your man. I can tell you about days without shaving because I didn’t want to look myself in the mirror. About the gallons of whiskey. About a trail of women. About a gun in my hand and being too cowardly to pull the trigger, not restrained by love of my own children, even, just fear of what comes after the recoil and flash.

Even now, in this sober and prayerful place, I have been reticent to write of these stirrings in my heart, because my heart is such a faithless instrument.

A falsity I embraced is that only righteous men can say good and true things. This misconception was one vein of a deep-rooted arrogance within me. I believed I was righteous and enlightened and God-ordained to speak truth. I believed I was more worthy than others to speak of noble things.

Of course that’s nonsense, insofar as whatever is pure and lovely and praiseworthy doesn’t originate with man. The worth of benedictions doesn’t reside in the purity of the speaker, but in the holiness of truth’s author. We make ourselves gods at every turn, don’t we?

There is beauty within this shattered creation. There are true and good things, and our struggle, every day, is not the truth of them, but the truth of ourselves. The words aren’t made worthy by us, but maybe, by God’s grace, we can be made more worthy of the words, and even by them, because good words are a blessing, which is why the priest or preacher or rabbi sends us out into the world with them humming in our inner hearts.

Logos is a name for Christ because creation was spoken into being. Some of that power conveys to us as well, because with our every word we build up or tear down, we soothe our brother or we flay him, we call into this earth either a heavenly aroma or pungent brimstone. God knows, we need more good words.

Which means they warrant utterance, it seems, even when they come from bad men. This world needs words freighted with gravity and grace, and I suppose it would be a sin not to speak them, even if we’ve never once in our lives measured up to their fullness.

On feeling Godforsaken

March 29th, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life, The Sermons | 3 Comments »

Some of you might like my meditation on what Good Friday means to the parent of a dead child. Here’s an excerpt:

“It is a great mystery to me, how God can know what it means to be forsaken, and because he is three-in-one, know also how it is to look on your dying child, hear the breath rattle in his deflating lungs, smell the shit running down his legs, see him strain to find your face, the only sight that will comfort him, your face, which is denied him in this moment of greatest need, because his eyes and this darkening world itself have failed him.

After my daughter died, people tried to comfort me by pointing to the fruits of her suffering. My own mother came to faith, she said, in the funeral home. My pastor took my mother into a side room and when she came out she wept and told me she’d accepted Christ as her savior. So much good, people said. Your daughter accomplished so much through her suffering.

I suppose that fruit is good but this is not a deal I would have made. I am weak and I miss her and you’d think a hole running through you would be light as air but it’s such a heavy load sometimes.”

You can read the rest here.

White ashes

March 21st, 2013 Posted in Theology | 20 Comments »

Last I checked there were 36,000 mentions of Jimmy Fallon in the news, and 8,820 of Kermit Gosnell.

It’s understandable if you haven’t heard of Gosnell. He’s a Philadelphia abortionist on trial for, among other things, murdering newborns by snipping their spines with scissors. He did this after failing to murder them while some portion of their bodies remained in the birth canal—that practice, of course, being considered humane by organizations like Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and the National Organization for Women.

Gosnell ran a slaughterhouse, and sometimes he kept the severed feet of his tiny victims in jars. At least one woman died under his ministrations. His defense alleges that his prosecution is motivated by race.

Not the sight of severed baby feet floating in jars, mind you, but race. How wonderful it would be, were Dr. King still alive, to give him five minutes alone in a room with this man.

There are four times more mentions of Jimmy Fallon not simply because Americans prefer entertainment to real-life horror. Had Gosnell been, say, a self-professed evangelical who murdered seven abortion doctors, instead of a profiteering abortionist who murdered seven babies, then I promise you, there is no way you would avoid hearing about it. There is no question about the morality of abortion for most journalists, only questions about the morality of people who oppose it.

It’s easy to blame journalists, and in this case they deserve blame. But I remember that in his heyday George Tiller, a late-term abortionist operating in Wichita, Kansas, secured from the city council a permit to expand his operations and add an incinerator to his facility. Tiller’s abortuary was located next to a car dealership, and if you talked to the guys working there, they would explain to you how every week they had to get out the hoses and wash white ash off the cars.

One day, a man walked into Tiller’s church and shot him in the head. That made the news, and it should have. But those white ashes? Reporting them would have been gauche. A journalist might get mistaken for some kind of religious nut, talking about those ashes.

History scorns the people who lived outside Auschwitz and Treblinka, with their weak protests of ignorance. How will history treat us, I wonder?

Sodas and guns and minimum virtue

March 20th, 2013 Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

On the radio I heard a shill for some agglomeration of sugary drink manufacturers inveigh against NYC mayor Bloomberg’s attempted regulation of soda sizes. “We believe New Yorkers are smart enough to make these decisions for themselves,” he said.

If you’ve been to New York, if you’ve been to America, then you might be tempted to question this praise. Most Americans watch many hours of television a day, most of our children rarely read, most of us are overweight. We are not a people who have distinguished ourselves, in the past two generations, by the smartness of our choices.

The right-thinking person doesn’t oppose a ban on gigantic sodas because he trusts the average American to make good decisions. He opposes it because he believes that if you give Mayor Bloomberg the right to regulate your Dr. Pepper intake, you invite him to determine what foods you may eat, and which vaccinations you can skip, and what is an acceptable height for women’s heels. Then, because this is government, you invite a host of well-connected companies to infiltrate the process with money, so that what is good for you miraculously begins to align with what is good for them.

This opposition to government power doesn’t assume that Americans will always make good decisions, but it does assume we won’t destroy ourselves. Freedom is predicated, in other words, on a capacity to live rightly. “Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people…” wrote John Adams, “are necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.”

Imagine someone came looking for wisdom, knowledge, and virtue in America today. Where might he find it? On our late night television shows? In the comments sections of newspapers? In the average high school classroom, where students read at a 5th-grade level, and admit to lying, stealing, and cheating on exams? In Congress, which might best be described as high school for demagogues?

But that’s a silly thought experiment, isn’t it, because who in his right mind goes looking for wisdom, knowledge, and virtue any more? We’re too busy searching for our God-given portion of self-esteem and happiness.

But if wisdom, knowledge, and virtue are scarce, what happens to freedom? Failing to instill in children lovingkindness, perseverance, and self-restraint eventually necessitates a mighty and merciless police state. Whether our feral offspring consume our substance and freedom, or we relinquish both in order to obtain protection from them, the equation remains undisputed—governance of the self is essential for political self-governance.

We have gotten ourselves to a place where we don’t even know how to sufficiently restrain evil and insanity from arming itself and slaughtering schoolchildren. Some people talk about restricting guns and others about distributing more of them, but the truth of things is that we grow sicker by the year, and so we face two unappealing options:  an armed populace increasingly unmoored from reason and virtue, or a populace disarmed by politicians unsavory enough to be elected by people who can’t be trusted with firearms.

The the thing is this: people talk about banning sodas and banning guns because we are destroying ourselves. There are good reasons to oppose both bans, but this opposition makes little sense unless we resolve to do our part to build up wisdom, knowledge, and virtue.

The difficulty is that these essentials are maintained in the institutions of community—families, churches, friendships, workplaces, schools—that we have allowed to become denuded. There are any number of causes for this erosion, and it can be quite pleasurable to sort through them, but I suppose when it comes to repairing these institutions it really just comes down to each of us picking up his allotted share of the burden.

Which is to say: loving one another less selfishly, serving one another more fully, training up our children more faithfully, praying more fervently. I know I stink at all those. Maybe some of you do, too. The good news is that there isn’t a whole lot of competition out there making us look bad. The bad news is that this means it’s up to us.

It’s hard work and it’s generational work and the people who call themselves conservatives used to understand that, though now they busy themselves with agonizing over how to “get their message out,” as if the problem might be solved by marketers and election consultants. The problem can only be solved, however, by each and every one of us, and that is because each and every one of us is the problem.

On the separateness of preaching and healing

March 13th, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life, The Sermons | 2 Comments »

Preach and heal. This is what Christ asked of his apostles, before sending them out in pairs:

“And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.” (Matt. 10:7-8)

Churches struggle to conjoin them. People struggle, don’t we? You want to love this self-destructive person you happen to care about, which is a miracle in itself because it can be so hard to love, and yet you love him all the same, in his brokenness, in his need, and surely this love must come from God, for you are just a sinner, after all, selfish and fallen. But how is it love to tell him the pain-filled truth, which is that in his lust or sloth or despair he is deeply, unrepentantly rebelling against God? How can a loving person even believe such a thing?

Preach to him? No, I’ll just love him. He’s already heard plenty of preaching from those whose hearts are shrouded by doctrines, by self-righteousness. I’ll love him, and my love will be my witness.

But this, even though it is borne of an earnest desire to show compassion, is arrogance. Christ, who is God, who is love, labored himself to preach, even to the point of driving away the bulk of his amassed followers. If Christ, who was first described as “the Word” by John, who later declared himself a sword dividing families—if the Savior who is God did more than witness himself through loving acts, then who are we to imagine we can shirk that duty?

But we are tempted to do so, especially when the one we love has been hurt—we know this because he recounts it to us in tears and fury—by others who have preached at him. We’re even tempted to tell ourselves that his troubles stem less from his rebellion, his refusal to submit on this one small point that should hardly matter to a God who is so big and loving and mysterious, than from the people who judge it sin. Love must rule the day. Love.

Some broken people you want to love, and other judgmental people (even though we know in our hearts that this, too, is a form of brokenness) you want to give a double-barrel of exegesis. They’re too literal or too narrow or too expansive, they are too . . . something, the chief characteristic of which is that they disagree fundamentally with you about what the Bible means, you with your great love for God and your many years of study and your membership in a church that really pursues Jesus.

Some we want to shield from preaching, and others we want to scorch with it.

In our omissions born either of selfish affection or angry righteousness we neglect the fullness of the commission itself, which is to preach and to heal. Worse, sometimes we confuse one for the other. We imagine healing comes solely from preaching the Bible’s truths at someone, or we imagine that a testimony of the truth can come solely from our compassionate care and acceptance. We make ourselves Christ when we do this, and more even than Christ, who himself submitted to the need to do both.

A question all we who seek to be doers of the word and not hearers only, then, is how we might both preach and heal. Sometimes this means we will cause someone to feel wounded and angry, which hurts us in turn, because it appears to be living proof that we have been unloving. Other times it means that we will let dirty, sinful, awkward people into our lives and homes and churches, which means we’ll confront our own ugly feelings towards them, which means confronting the ugliness that dwells within our own darkened hearts.

All of which is why, I suppose, Christ said to take up a cross rather than a party hat.

On false compassion

March 4th, 2013 Posted in Theology | 7 Comments »

The challenge when debating a liberal Christian is that he is bound by neither Scripture nor tradition but sentiment. He is therefore free to embrace both sin and sinner, and thereby appear more loving, more magnanimous, than his opponents.

This magnanimity carries a subtle condescension, as in the first sentence of Dave Barnhart’s recent essay, “How Being a Pastor Changed My Thinking on Homosexuality:”

“I managed to make it through college, seminary, and grad school with most of my prejudices intact. I won’t overstate my bigotry: ‘I had gay friends,’ but I was the kind of person who would use that phrase when defending my prejudices.”

The implication is that if you disagree with Barnhart about the pliability of gender, the acceptability of homosexual sex, and gay marriage (something he only tacitly admits supporting in the midst of ingratiating himself to one of his commenters), then you are a bigot. It’s a forgivable error, given that hostility toward gays is the trait most commonly associated with Christians.

It’s highly problematic all the same, at least insofar as we might expect a pastor to understand Christian dogma to the point that he does not bless what God condemns. But perhaps that is too high an expectation these days. Now you are deep if you quote a few lines of Scripture to support your heartfelt point. Barnhart, for example, quotes the 23rd chapter of Matthew to argue that Christians have, like the Pharisees, bound their brethren with the overly heavy burden of refraining from homosexual sex and marriage. The implication is that these burdens are unbiblical, though in the very same passage Barnhart cites, Christ says: “Whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do…” Christ’s point, in other words, is not that the Law is invalid, but that the Pharisees obeyed it only as show, and did nothing to help their flock live righteously.

No matter, because Barnhart is making a point here, the totality of Scripture be damned, and his point is that, if Jesus said “My burden is easy and my yoke is light,” that must mean, when we put it next to those isolated verses from Matthew 23, that he aims to decrease the rules. And if Jesus himself diminishes the law, well, we fussy Christians who want to hold to all that stuff about homosexual behavior in Leviticus and Romans and elsewhere are being like the Pharisees.

It all makes sense if you want it to make sense, regardless of the reality that Christ also said that He came not to change an iota of the Law, regardless of the traditional understanding that when He speaks of the light yoke He doesn’t mean that the Law is obliterated, but rather that He bears it, and He therefore bears us, and strengthens us to live rightly.

All this is problematic because both Scripture and Christian tradition are remarkably clear about homosexual sex, and only heroic semantic acrobatics can cast doubt on this reality. Homosexual sex is condemned in Old and New Testaments (every Christian should humbly pause and remember, at this point, that gossip is likewise condemned), and at no point before modern times has any church within shouting distance of orthodox shores ordained homosexual marriages.

Christians who would alter (or bow out of the dispute about altering) this tradition have taken two routes. One is to cast doubt on the Scriptures themselves. Science progressively reveals, they say, the falsities of the Bible. Tossing out Scripture, we are free, in the words of Bishop John Spong, to achieve “a new humanity.”

The other method is to evoke the serpent’s question: “Did God say?” We see this in the response of popular Christian writer Shane Clairborne to a question about homosexuality:

“I think we have to begin by acknowledging that part of the reason this is a difficult topic, and part of the reason we have disagreement on it, is because Jesus never really talks about it directly.”

This is a refinement of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, in which the red words are preeminent. Sola scriptura rubra. Its proponents seem to imagine themselves closer to the original Jesus than all we fussy dogmatics, though in imagining as much they commit the further dogmatic error of forgetting that Christ is a member of the divine Trinity, of one will with the Father, who breathed out to us the Scriptures, according to St. Paul and the councils at Constantinople and Nicea.

But these are small matters, these days. American Christianity is, like the market economy in which it is rooted, a matter of personal choice. And to be fair, it is Christians—I number myself among them—who have enabled the popularity of ear ticklers like Dave Barnhart and Shane Clairborne. Too many of us, too often, have acted in hatred toward homosexuals, or treated them with cold indifference, or failed to denounce widely followed church leaders who acted with hatred and indifference. We failed to distinguish actions from persons, and to remove the planks from our own eyes first, and in demonizing homosexuals we not only sinned grievously, we strengthened the standing of men who are so swelled with self-serving compassion that they happily alter “tired theology,” as Barnhart calls it.

It’s a false compassion. It’s not a “suffering alongside,” but a denial of the faith. It offers its intended beneficiaries neither the fullness of the Church nor of Christ, and it misleads a generation of young people who have enough love and good sense to reject the hatred they’ve detected in too many of their elders, but who have been no better trained in doctrine. Its corrosive effect will not be limited to this one small corner of Christian dogma.

Phantom limbs and other lost things

February 22nd, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life | Comments Off

Some of you may like my essay at Good Letters. An excerpt:

“Sometimes this broken world hacks away at our flesh. Other times it hands us the blades, and we sunder ourselves. Drink down whatever forgetting medicine invites you and the stump will stop hurting, but as God is my witness, you will not move from that place of loss. You’ll lie on the floor, raging at the sky for taking your legs, raging at God, raging at anyone who offers to help. You’ll rage and you’ll drink the numbing draught and then, one day, you will be alone.”

You can read the rest here.

The scandal of the evangelical intellectual’s mind

February 21st, 2013 Posted in Theology | 1 Comment »

A reasonable response to the accusation that the evangelical mind is insufficiently expansive is to ask to what dimensions its critics would like to see it expanded. That question springs to the lips when considering Biblical scholar Peter Enns’s contention that evangelical minds are not only confined, but are required to remain in confinement. “The real scandal of the Evangelical mind,” Enns writes, “is that we are not allowed to use it.” Evangelical scholars, he claims, must come to “predetermined conclusions.”

On its face this is wildly untrue. An evangelical poetry professor is free to conclude, contrary to popular opinion, that Emily Dickinson was not so original. An evangelical metallurgy professor is free to conclude that two metals bond at lower temperatures than previously believed. Most evangelical scholars have freedoms identical to those enjoyed by Catholic and Jewish and Buddhist and atheist scholars.

What Enns means is that evangelical scholars will be censured if their research impinges on evangelical dogma. This is not entirely accurate either; several members of the Jesus Seminar were members of evangelical congregations, and their careers were only aided by their collaboration in that heretical enterprise.

So what Enns really means is that evangelical scholars are expected to conform to evangelical dogma if they wish to teach in institutions that require dogmatic adherence as a condition of employment, or if they seek the approval of evangelicals who are not willing to subject dogma to scientific proof-testing. Which sounds a bit like the sailor complaining that his duties don’t include mountain-climbing.

Enns’s underlying complaint (alongside many others who conflate rebuttal with censure, and who collectively fill the internet and bookstores and who are not, as a movement, suffering from paucity of audience) is that most evangelicals refuse to adjust their dogma when confronted with putatively contradictory scientific proof.

In this Enns represents a narrow-minded view, however, borne of a strain of anti-intellectualism, ironically, birthed during the Enlightenment. The Western intellectual’s devotion to reason seduced him into reductionism, and ultimately, the crude materialism that is the thoughtless proving ground of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and other surprisingly unoriginal “new atheists.” Reductionism informs the verse-parsing that is the domain of modern evangelicals: Let’s take another look at the 97 verses that prove predestination/free will/adults-only communion.

Materialism, meanwhile, animates modern evangelical intellectuals embarrassed by their brethren who oppose teaching evolution in schools, or who aren’t adequately troubled by God’s wholesale slaughter of heathens in the Old Testament: We can’t ignore archeology and anthropology and a whole host of ologies that appear to contradict our theology.

It makes sense that Scripture would be relevant to one’s understanding of God, and that nature’s ordering can reveal things about its author. The problem is that Enns and his comrades teeter over a trap that ensnares the atheists who despise them, in that they elevate reason from God-given tool to arbiter of what is God, while sublimating mystery to a more socially acceptable, arms-length wonderment.

You have to understand that the Old Testament writing about the destruction of the Canaanites has a certain socio-political context, don’t you see, and really we must get beyond all this “God-breathed” business, but let’s not forget that God is big and wonderful in that you still have to be pretty awesome to set the forces of evolution into motion.

Enns summarizes his bind well: evangelicalism (used to, at least) connote an ambition to sustain dogma “by intellectual means.” Bible studies, sola scriptura, throwing off rituals for the steady reason of the Reformation fathers, and all that. But here’s the rub: “These intellectual means are circumscribed by Evangelical dogma.”

But this has always been at the heart of the Christian enterprise, and it’s surprising to find Christian scholars who are surprised by it. The knowing of God, a fundamental element of our faith tells us, extends beyond the senses. This is the rebuttal to atheist materialists, namely, that it is unimaginative and irrational to conclude that nothing exists beyond the senses simply because one’s senses cannot detect it. Once you accept this conclusion, the door has been opened to miracles, to dualities, to the heart of a father who says to Christ, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief.” It is open to a God-breathed book that sometimes seems to contradict the evidence man thinks he has scratched from the tombs of the ancients.

And so the Christian intellectual lives with mysteries. Further, he doesn’t find these onerous, because his intellect is expansive enough to contain seeming contradictions, to leave to God what is God’s domain, and to toil in the fields assigned to man.

Winton’s Children

February 15th, 2013 Posted in Faith and Life | 2 Comments »

In case anybody ever tells you that one average joe can’t make much difference: Winton’s Children


UPDATE: If you’d like to see someone deserving win the Nobel Peace Prize for a change, you might consider signing this petition.