Simplicity: Outward Expressions (#1 and #2)

In Celebration of Discipline, Foster suggests ten outward expression of the inner attitudes of simplicity. These must taken as suggestions, as a help on the path to simplicity and the growth towards greater peace and not as a set of rigid propositions that "deteriorate into legalistic rules." In today's excerpt, I present the first two of the ten.

First, buy things for their usefulness rather than their status. Cars should be bought for their utility, not their prestige...Don't have more house than is reasonable... Wear your clothes until they are worn out. Stop trying to impress people with your clothes and impress them with your life.

Second, reject anything that is producing an addiction in you. Learn to distinguish between a real psychological need, like cheerful surroundings, and an addiction. Eliminate or cut down on the use of addictive, non-nutritive drinks: alcohol, coffee, tea, Coca-Cola, etc...If money has a grip on your heart, give some away and feel the release. Simplicity is freedom, not slavery.

Until next time: Live simply that others may simply live.

Simplicity: Inner Attitudes

I have recently picked up "Celebration of Discipline" by Richard Foster again after finding it in a storage box with a bookmark several chapters in. I had forgotten how much I like this book. I just finished reading the chapter on the discipline of simplicity and found a few salient sections to share. The first is about the inner attitudes that characterize simplicity. These, by nature, are more abstract but I think they provide a good foundation for what follows: ten practical steps for achieving simplicity in the 20th (now 21st) century.

Freedom from anxiety is characterized by three inner attitudes. If what we have we receive as a gift, and if what we have is to be cared for by God, and if what we have is available to others, then we will possess freedom from anxiety. This is the inward reality of simplicity. However, if what we have we believe we have gotten, and if what we have we believe we must hold onto, and if what we have is not available to others, then we will live in anxiety. Such persons will never know simplicity regardless of the outward contortions they may put themselves through in order to live "the simple life."

Celebration of Discipline by Richard Foster, Harper and Row (1978), pg. 77.

In the near future, I hope to follow up with the ten practical suggestions. If you have a copy of the book, it's worth another look at this chapter, and if you don't have a copy, what are you waiting for?

A Time That is All Shabbat

Yom shekulo Shabbat, a time that is all Shabbat...

That is the day we are waiting for, longing to see. I have been pondering this week that the coincidence of Shabbat and Christmas would inadvertently lead millions of people to observe some measure of Shabbat that normally do not observe it. To those of us who normally do, it would provide a rare national day of rest in the United States. Only on Christmas is there no work, no buying, no selling, with people at home with their families. The streets are quiet, the stores are closed. It is a microcosm of what we could all have every week, a treasure, a sanctuary in the fabric of time. It is one day that is somewhat like what begins every Friday in Jerusalem and ends every Saturday night. A time to reflect and heal the week's struggles and sicknesses.

A famous Jewish maxim says: "More than the Jew has kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept the Jew."

May the day come speedily, the time that is all Shabbat!

Snip on the Revolutionary Viewpoint

Here is a quick snip from an email that I wrote about the Marxist-Revolutionary viewpoint:

Here is what I know about a Marxist-Revolutionary viewpoint. The basis of Marxist socialism is class warfare, the poor against the rich, the oppressed against the oppressor, the worker against the capitalist, the have-not against the have. They use this paradigm to interpret every conflict, and wrongly assume that if everyone had more equal amounts of wealth and influence, all of our wars and conflicts would go away. But in practice, such idealism is corrupted by human nature and the very saviours of the working man become an elite, powerful, privileged class of a different kind, generally using totalitarian force to enact policies "for the good of the people." The virtue of our republic is that it admits and provides checks against human nature and is structured to give equal opportunity and protection and that is why it is such a stinkin' great place to live.

Unsafe at Any Dose

Are certain ideas so deceptive, so tantalizing, and so wrong that they are unsafe at any dose? I have been asking myself this question lately. The title of this post comes from the title of a book written by Bob Johnson warning about the dangers of psychotropic medications and other psychiatric techniques. This book is analogous to Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed," a critique of consumer automobile safety. The basic idea is that real danger and real poison exist, and while most things can be taken in moderation there are some that cannot be taken in any amount.

In several situations, people that I know and respect have started to entertain novel teachings and beliefs and when I question how it is they are accepting these ideas, a very common answer is, "we have to be good Bereans, and search the scripture." This alludes to a passage in Acts where the believers in Berea were considered noble minded because they searched out Paul's teaching according to the scriptures (think Old Testament) to see if what he was teaching was true. Therefore, goes the argument, before we just dismiss a line of teaching we are obligated to some level of objective inquiry, and moreover perceived as narrow and rigid if we decide too quickly. I believe that the Berean approach is praiseworthy, but perhaps misunderstood.

One problem that I have with universal application of the Good Berean line of thinking is that it presumes that one has the time, skills, and resources to verify the many claims of deceptive ideas (and their exponents) in a fair and objective way. This is ludicrous. No one can stand knee-deep in a stream of speculation, and sort out point by point, "this is good, this is bad." Especially since deceptive teaching is mostly good, or at least not obviously wrong. Expressed as a percentage, maybe 70% good, 30% wrong. So what if a person is clever and wise enough to separate the 30% wrong out very cleanly and pass the 70% good along to others? In theory, this is fine. Practically, who has the time? Boundaries and categories are necessary. In my world of chemistry, extremely clean separations are difficult and energy intensive, there is always some trace impurity in anything that is purified. How much it matters depends on how sensitive the system is to impurity, and how potent the impurity is.

The second problem that I have with the Good Berean line of thinking is that the Bereans were evaluating the words of a teacher (Paul) that they had already received and trusted. Therefore, I would argue from that text that it is requisite that the teacher themselves be approved prior to hearing or evaluating any teaching. We are not required to suffer a false prophet, liar, or fool. Moses, Yeshua, and Paul all give instructions about the qualifications of teachers, leaders, and prophets. If a teacher does not meet the qualifications, they do not require any further hearing or evaluation. Yeshua said that we will know them by their fruits. A person can say whatever is expedient at the moment and draw a crowd, but they can't fake a life of righteousness for very long. Can the person maintain relationships, can they lead a family, can they provide for themselves? As Yeshua said, "Where the carcass is, there the vultures will gather." If there are vultures to be found, there is rottenness around.

Another common attitude with respect to questionable teaching and teachers is "take it or leave it." Or, "if it works for you, great." Intellectually, I'm having a hard time seeing how this is different from classic maxims of 60s and 70s latitudinarianism like "different strokes for different folks," "I'm OK, you're OK", and, "if it feels good, do it." If it's partly bad, why take it at all? I like "if in doubt, leave it out." If it's not two-hands-above-the-table, clean, and pure, what is our interest? (Philippians 4) Do we crave the approval of others for our perceived sophistication in such matters, do we fear being shunned as parochial and fundamentalist in defense of absolutes? There must be enough firmness and gravity to the truth that we can either approve or reject some ideas outright, or at least hold them at arm's length and certainly not recommend them to others until we are sure.

How about specifics? I don't mind specifics, creating categories, and triaging the halt and lame into wards where we can deal with them. What kinds of things are unsafe at any dose? Here are several that I am convinced of.

• Kabbalah: it's witchcraft, why bother?
• In the Messianic world, Two House, Sacred Name, Creator's Calendar: it's unfounded speculation based on questionable scholarship, infused with anarchy, presumption, and rebellion, why bother?
• Aliens, vampires, UFOs, the para-normal
• Freemasonry and other secret fraternal orders
• Yoga, reflexology, Traditional Chinese Medicine, transcendental meditation, acupuncture, the body electric, astrology
• Religious movements formed around a man

Maybe you feel somewhat surprised by the list above. Perhaps you beg to differ. What are some things that you consider unsafe at any dose? What do you think? (Leave a comment).

Pretends to be Rich

Another one I have been pondering (Proverbs 13:7): One pretends to be rich, yet has nothing; another pretends to be poor, yet has great wealth.

"Pretends to be rich" = leverages his sorry soul for house, furniture, vehicles, etc. to appear rich, "yet has nothing" except for monthly payments.

"Pretends to be poor" = doesn't flaunt it, keeps saving, giving, and growing it, "yet has great wealth" it's just not liquid and obvious to the casual observer.

And He Quoth

I have decided to simplify my FB "Info" page and give the Ad-Masters less data to work with. To preserve the quotes I had collected there, I will paste them here. Thus:

All great masters are chiefly distinguished by the power of adding a second, a third, and perhaps a fourth step in a continuous line. Many a man has taken the first step. With every additional step you enhance immensely the value of your first.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

He who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety. ~Ben Franklin

Green is the new red.

Give a man a fish, and you will feed him for a day. Maybe two days, if it is a big fish.

Cattle are driven, sheep are led.
~Randy Ludeman

When I was young, I admired people who were clever. Now that I am old, I admire people who are kind. ~Abraham Joshua Heschel

And that is the end.