Friday, April 20, 2018

Too hard?

The subject of “being too hard”on your kids, in regards to religious practice, seems to come up quite often.  There are many examples of this taking place, always with really bad results. A few notable names come to mind, such as Maynard Keenan (from the band Tool) and GG Allin (from the band, The Murder Junkies).  Both of these men were raised in very strict religious homes and both men reacted strongly in rebellion against that religiosity that was foisted upon them.
I have to wonder what exactly is taking place.  On the surface, the child is raised in a situation that stifles, controls and suppresses them, rather than challenging, maturing and loving them.  Everyone has a different personality and to force religion, something that is supposed to fulfill, upon them, in a manner that drives them away is, in my opinion, about the worst action one can take.
So my question is this? What does it mean to be "too hard" on your kids? Scripture does speak of this when it says, "Fathers do not exasperate your children." (Ephesians 6:4). One of the biggest problems with this passage is the way that it is handled, according to personal interpretation. In the world of Protestantism/Evangelicalism, one can interpret Scripture in whatever way one seeks fit. I can guarantee that no father guilty of being too hard on his children even sees himself that way. 
In order to keep this practical, we can say two things. One, never make the faith a matter of grief, animosity or disdain. Going to church or church related events should not be a pain point for kids. If it is, we are doing something wrong. This is not to say that church/religion should be fun and games. But it is our responsibility to make our faith real to our kids.
It really comes down to love. If we are loving God and loving neighbor
 (ie, our kids), like we should a relationship of open communication should 
be natural. Yes, children will rebel and want to define things for themselves. 
But that is a progression that should take place. Our kids must embrace
 faith for themselves and not simply mimic us. And this may mean a different 
path to come into a faith for themselves.

Saturday, April 14, 2018

What to do

It is the feeling of helplessness that is so bothersome.  The older I become, the more I realize just how powerless I am and how little I know.  As an idealistic youth and young man, the world was black and white.  What the pastor said in his weekly sermons were true and defensible. But now, as I have reached middle age, life is much more complex, every incomprehensible at times.  Sure, there is black and white, but the gray area in the middle continues to grow.  Circumstances change everything.
What then are we to do, when we are essentially powerless to really make any difference in the world around us?  Governments are corrupt, sex drives everything, people have become objects to be used and thrown away.  Abortion is common, abuse is common, euthanasia is common, neglect of reality and a focus on the temporal rules the day.
As I've mentioned in a previous post, the physical world around us, that everyone focuses on, to the neglect of the other 90% of reality, is painful to live in.  There is so much wrong, so much messed up, so much going the complete wrong direction, that I have to ask, "What to do?"
We cannot become fatalists, for we truly believe that prayer makes a difference.  We cannot simply stop caring, for we have loved ones that need us and that we need.  As Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you."  So we have to get used to the idea of the persistent nature of evil and suffering.  As long as we are on this side of the final judgment, life is suffering.
The only answer I can offer, the only answer the church has to offer, is that of prayer and repentance. We pray for those in need and we strive after holiness, repenting as we go.

Friday, April 13, 2018

Maturation

One of the responsibilities of the parent is to help and guide their children to grow and mature.  Obviously, the physical aspect of maturation is unavoidable. Children do grow, under normal circumstances, into adulthood. But what about the mental, the emotional and the psychological?  These things do not simply happen, environment and genetics are both influential in these maturation processes.
One aspect, particularly interesting to me, is the psychological part in connection with entertainment.  The things (at a very foundational level) that we, as parents/adults, find interesting and entertaining, will be passed on to our children.  If we love sports, most likely our children will as well. If we love the outdoors/hiking/camping/exercise, most likely that will influence and direct our children into the same interests.  While the influence we have upon our children in this regard is not necessarily a one-to-one, the basic categorical influence is, I believe, unavoidable. So if we as adults like watching movies, of any particular genre, while it is probably unavoidable that our children will enjoy watching movies as well, what is not necessarily true is the genre they choose as their preference.  This is where deliberate training comes into play.
So what happens when our interests and entertainments are childish?  Are we not then hindering/handicapping our children? So the important thing to see here is not so much our attention to what we direct our children into, but our deliberate training in how to think about their preferences.  Whatever our interests, our children will follow, but we must be attentive to the fact that their own sinful inclinations may take those interests into areas and genres that we never would have considered.
We must lead our children, not by trying to control them or keep them blind to reality, but by raising them up to think clearly about what it is they are doing and why they are doing it.  Maturation is about freedom and handling it with wisdom. If we try to control our children, with rules and regulations, they will only rebel. If we train them to understand reality, they can think rightly about their own thoughts and actions and through our prayers and the sacraments of the church, live rightly.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Productivity

I was about to make a comment, to one of my children, about being productive, when the thought struck me.  Why do we always think of productivity in regards to things temporal/physical/monetary?  When one stops and considers to what the term actually refers, it simply is about producing.  And producing something that one considers valuable.  So clearly, an underlying definition is being exposed herein.
When we have accomplished our day and have been "productive", it means that we have produced that which we intended or hoped to produce.  Whether it be widgets or sales figures or a trailer full of crop x, y, z.  But what about things spiritual? Do we ever think of a visit to a monastery as "productive"?  Do we every finish our Lenten fast (or any fast for that matter) and looking back, consider the time "productive"?  I would think that we probably do not.
But in this I think we are exposing a serious flaw in our hearts and minds.
When we look at the length of our physical life, in comparison to the eternity that stretches out before us, it is almost nil. But the time that we do have, as free will agents of 80 to 100 years, the time is very important.  For this short time we have in our struggle against sin, is the only time we have to form our souls, to seek after holiness and to fight against sin.
So really, we have a tiny sliver of time to prepare ourselves for eternity.  And that is something that we really must strive in and be productive.

Friday, April 6, 2018

A controversial comparison

A probably controversial comparison came to mind yesterday.  Something was said, I believe it was in a homily by my priest, regarding the apostle Paul.  For some reason i thought of Paul, when he was on trial before the ruler Festus and Festus made a comment about "Paul's much learning driving him mad." (Acts 26:24)  Clearly, Festus was not referring to Paul as a madman/lunatic, for Paul was speaking clearly, articulately and somewhat convincingly.  It may actually be difficult to know exactly to what Festus was referring, but it was his impression that Paul was losing contact with what most would consider normalcy and normal understanding of things.
This next led me to think of Jesus' words to his disciples, warning them that the world would hate them because of Jesus.  I believe there may be a small connection between how the world will perceive the way that a believer thinks, in comparison to a "regular" person.
The second person that then came to mind, in regards to being considered insane, was Alistair Crowley, the famous British occultist from the mid 1900's.  This man, clearly, was on the opposite end of the spectrum, from the Apostle Paul.  Crowley certainly had his share of learning, but his was not an education in godliness and love, but rather literally, the opposite.  Crowley spent his inherited fortune and literal lifetime inventing and discovering every form of magic and perversion known to man.  In the end, Crowley became a babbling madman, literally.  The later audio recordings of him reveal a literal blithering idiot, completely incoherent.
So what is the difference? Paul was called a madman, due to his cogent, coherent, moving intelligence, even though it was contrary to "normal" thought.  Crowley was considered a madman because he literally appeared to be insane.  Literally incoherent and irrational.
This is a good example of love of God and love of neighbor moving one man to life and beauty, while the pursuit of lust, power and debauchery led another man to insanity.
I'm not exactly sure what the value of this thought experiment is, but it came together in a somewhat intriguing fashion.  I'd love to hear your comments/thoughts.

Thursday, April 5, 2018

The actual depth of reality

My son presented a truly interesting concept to me the other day, in the form of an article.  The article  was written by a professor at some university in Southern California.  The idea was basic, what we see as reality is actually an illusion.  As would be expected, I was somewhat suspect, even after reading the article.  But in a brief conversation with my son sometime thereafter, my son explained the idea, in better terminology.
The idea is this.  Just like when we look at our computer monitor and see a collection of icons, which are links to files, the icon itself it not the thing itself, but instead a representation of the file. Our physical eye cannot see the file, which in reality is a string of 0's and 1's, which, when properly interpreted and understood, can communicate a wide variety of things, things far beyond the little icon on the computer monitor.
So too is it with physical reality.  When we look at, hear, smell and feel the world around us, we are actually only seeing a very shallow, one-sided representation of reality.  The perceptions we take in with our senses are limited and we are incapable of "seeing/hearing/smelling/tasting/feeling" complete reality.  The senses are not designed to and simply cannot grasp reality as a whole.
The end result of the conversation between my son and I took the basic concept of the original article, refined it and, in my opinion, vastly improved it.  The author's original concept called the physical a mere illusion.  My son and I, in contrast, defined the physical as not illusion, but only one aspect of reality, a very small part, to be more precise.  The spiritual/emotional aspect makes up much more of reality that the mere physical.
In a conversation I had with one of my younger sons, I took a very tangible example of just how real this concept is.  It is said, in physiology, that the body we have at one point, is completely replaced with new cells, within a seven year time period.  What it is then that defines who we are? Certainly not the mere physical, for within seven years, it is something different.
Ruminate on that for awhile.  It truly is mind-blowing.

Monday, April 2, 2018

Thoughts on philanthropy

In response to Bill Gates’ recent comments on forcing higher taxes on the wealthy, I believe a different approach is in order.  I know of very few who have been more philanthropic than the Gates Foundation. No one can accuse Gates of being stingy. But his latest comments on making higher taxes for the wealthy is wrong headed.  Philanthropy is a good thing, but one cannot be forced to be philanthropic. Forced philanthropy is nothing less than higher taxes, i.e., taxes. Being forced to do anything is nothing to be proud of.
I would like to be able to say that the problems in the world, related to poverty and suffering could easily be addressed, in light of the extreme wealth of a fairly large number of people.  But yet, here we are, a fairly large number of extremely wealthy people and the extreme poverty, suffering and starvation of so many people still exists. What is the answer?
Somehow some people seem to have the idea that if someone is extremely wealthy, they ought to pay more taxes so as to help offset the imbalance of need versus excess.  But this is really just another way of promoting communism. The redistribution of wealth is a communist idea, that has failed, over and over again. The question ought to be, “Why should someone, who through a variety of means, has extreme wealth, be forced to give that money away?”  Now it very well could be that someone with extreme wealth should be philanthropic (I believe there is substantial biblical support for such an idea), but the government under which that person lives should NOT take their money by force. Stealing is stealing, even when it has a politically correct label.
But ultimately the problem is corruption.  It can practically be said that those with extreme wealth and extreme power take advantage of these tools and do not do what they ought.  At the same time, those of us with a moderate income, or even borderly poverty ought to be doing what we can as well. Generosity is not required only of the wealthy.  Everyone struggles with selfishness, to some degree. Apparently it is easier to see in the wealthy. Corruption in politics, too, brings about suffering for the poor and weak.  So the answer is not further corruption/abuse at the hands of government (i.e., higher taxes for some).
It ought to be the case that all of us have compassion on those in need and address those needs with their money and power.  Jesus told us that we would always have the poor with us, but that does not mean that we do nothing about it. As St John Chrysostom said, “if you have two coats, one you have stolen from your brother who has none.” In other words, we should never relish our excess at the expense of someone else’s suffering or want.

The issue is obviously an extremely complex one, that will not be answered in a simplistic manner.  Forcing higher taxes is simply further corruption and abuse. Simply throwing more money out will not fix the problem either, as the corruption that currently exists will un-do or redirect that money to wrong places.