Part 1: I was born of a mixed race couple in an inner-city hospital, on the Eastern edge of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. I spent my childhood years bouncing from home to home, and school to school. We spent as much time on food stamps as off. We accepted food from churches and stood in line for Government cheese. My care takers were drug addicts and the mentally ill. I had my first ride in the back of a cop car when I was five or six. That’s when I was taken to my first foster home. I have fond memories of a Shelter for Battered Women my mother and I stayed in for awhile. It was near the beach, and we would go there on weekends. Also, there were lots of other kids to play with. I was around eight when a friend of mine was killed in the street. He was a lot older, I think around thirteen. By then, the older kids were already scoring drugs and getting into trouble. Even us younger kids knew who all the drug dealers were, and could tell if they were holding just by walking by their houses. We ended up out in the desert a lot. In trailer parks built on the edges of junk yards. If my parents were together, we would move to where my dad could find a delicate balance of creative work and cheap rent. Otherwise it was cinderblock walls and blankets that smelled like spoiled formula.
As I got older and more creative, I learned the value of currency in all its forms: Nickel and Dime bags, ‘teenths and eight balls. The going rate for buying and selling food stamps depended largely on how close it was to the first of the month. This was my 3rd Grade Math. My only concept back then of, “Street Credit” would have had something to do with asking someone to “front” you some drugs (bad idea, by the way). Life was up-side-down. Good was bad. Bad was good. We were taught to lie to the Police, our teachers, and ESPECIALLY CPS. Us kids picked our way among the addictions and convictions. Ultimately, it didn’t work out. When all the dust had settled, Pop did some time for another DUI, and Mom was sent away for a nervous breakdown. I didn’t see her again for three years. I had hoped to see her at the divorce hearing, but she didn’t show. I saw her again when I was fourteen, in a half-way house. She made me a card and showed me where they let her sleep.
I guess what I’m trying to get at here is, depravity. I know what it looks like. I spot it from across the room and hope it doesn’t smile back at me, recognizing me for one of its brood. You see, I escaped. I rose above my station. Not by much, mind you. But certainly more than those who never expected me to grow up to be anything other than a drug addict. I’m not claiming “Sob Story of the Year,” lots of folks have had it a lot worse than I ever did. And believe me I know, lots of folks have stuff they just don’t talk about, so let’s just leave it at that. What I’m trying to get at is that I have some idea of what it’s like to get it wrong. I grew up surrounded by generational poverty and depravity, fueled by welfare and failed social programs. I have a healthy mistrust of naïve do-gooders, and a deep disdain for people or institutions that hurt kids.
It took me a while to get here; after all, I wasn’t raised this way. I spent too many years resenting others for being “lucky” or “privileged.” I railed against a corrupt system that would never let the "likes of me" participate. WE were the proletariat, and THEY were the bourgeoisie. And in the case of my upbringing, THEY were everyone who wasn’t US. By my middle teens I started to recognize the pattern of those who blazed the trail before me. The older “cool” kids had already started to burn out or disappear. Daughters of single mothers on welfare became single mothers on welfare. The slow burn of another generation had begun.
More later. 10-21-10
Alaniz
Part 2: My Friend Dave asked what I was on about, and here is what I said:
I attend a predominantly white middle class to upper-middle class church. I show up to Sunday school most every week and talk to some fantastic people, most of which I have come to think of... as friends. Still, mostly people from a very different background than my own. These days I think of myself as a pretty liberal, conservative. I esteem the rights if the individual above the "rights" of the State. Specifically, the rights and freedoms of an individual to pursue happiness in any way that does not impinge upon the rights of others. With this in mind, I'm pretty flexible on most things. There are some things on which I do not bend. Most of these involve people or programs that hurt kids. These days I'm a pretty non-violent person, but there are still some people or ideas that make me do a quick look around the room for things I might trip over if things get ugly. Well, lately our church has started moving toward "social justice." This idea that somehow you can create less need with more handouts. You know me. I'm not above anyone. Heck, when we were younger, Codie and I got on the food stamps for a while. I love that we live in a country that is prosperous enough to support those who occasionally fall into a rough patch. (I'm not sure if that should be the roll of Government, but for now, it is.) What I am against, is a system that encourages people to not work. I have heard people my whole life say, "If I get a job at (minimum wage place) I'll make less money [than I do on welfare]." (And the answer is not raising minimum wage either. Raising the bottom line only pushes everyone else down.) I know, I have seen the system gut the drive for anything better out of entire populations. it doesn't work. Evidently it sounds crazy to some people but, too much "compassion" for people keeps them down. We have a system of welfare in this country that penalizes the industrious. Bounce that off the particular way I see the world, and it is a system that hurts kids. It sucks the spark of life out of them. They are brought up with this belief that there is a wall between them and a prosperous life. The terrible thing is, they're right. It is a wall created BY the welfare system. If they screw up and get a job, they lose the stamps and the WIC. They end up making HALF what they were getting for doing nothing. You've seen it. You know EXACTLY what the hell I'm talking about. SO, fast forward to what is going on at my church. The new preacher gets up and says there are people who need our help. He says that these people have been "marginalized." That particular word strokes me the wrong way. We do not have a "marginalized" population in this country. Not like the "untouchables" in India, or Christians under the Taliban, or gays in Iran today for that matter. There are these people, in MY opinion, who look DOWN on the poor. Who look to the ghetto and think, "if we could just do MORE, these people wouldn't suffer." "We need more hand-outs and social programs." "We need to walk up and down the streets handing out more free stuff so these people can have the same stuff as the rest of us." No, I say! You naive do-gooders just need to get the hell AWAY! The system is broken. Until it is fixed, you cannot make things better by turning it up. So here I am ranting in Sunday school. I tell people, "I came from there, it doesn't work." But I don't know if they understand. I don't know if they've ever seen a pregnant woman smoke crack. Somehow, I think that if they had, they would be just as agitated as I am by this whole thing. Then someone asks me why I am being so heartless and insensitive to the needs of others? Why do I not want to help these people who lack so much? Do I not want to help them because they are black? And I'm struck dumb. I don't know what to say. Maybe these folks don't really have any idea who I am. So I wrote the first part of my Essay on Socialism. I wrote it and re-wrote it. I ended up editing out everything I couldn't generalize. I left out all the stuff about emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. I cleaned up references to drugs and violence. This is Facebook after all. Who might read this one day. This is the wrong forum for too much honesty. After I read what I had written, finally written, I decided not to press the issue. I'm not sure if I can get people to understand anyway. Meanwhile, I am painted as an ultra-conservative whacko who is positioned at odds to the Liberal compassion of our new church leadership. Wow, how did I get here?
Alaniz
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
A Good Man Dies
A good man was killed in my town today by someone I can only imagine as a soulless, brutish thug. A man, who owned a business in town for many years and contributed much to his community and church, is dead today. Another man, who thought it easier to kill than to profit from his own industry, will sleep in his own bed tonight. Steal or work, kill or create, these are not legitimate options for a rational person. A rational person does not bludgeon another man to death when he needs money for alcohol either.
Five blocks from the courthouse and six blocks from our shinny new police station, on a main street, and in broad daylight, a man with a bat walked into a small office building, demanded money, and then beat a seventy-six year old man to death and critically injured a woman. He then walked out and disappeared. The police showed up after the fact to put up their tape, take pictures, and oversee the removal of the body. Maybe they’ll catch the guy, and I sure hope they do, but who among you can tell me these people did not deserve the right to protect themselves from this horrific attack?
Every time a good guy goes down and a bad guy walks away, the balance of our society tips in the wrong direction. Every year in this country, four million crimes are prevented by the legal use of firearms. The mere presence of a firearm could have saved a life today. Every argument I have ever heard against the right of free citizens to keep and carry firearms is moot and irrelevant.
I am so deeply pained by the loss of life and injury felt today by the good people of my community. My heart and prayers go out to the families and friends of all those affected by today’s tragedy. Now is a time for tears and comforting. I hope the police can bring a swift end to the growing fear in our community of a killer walking free. However, there is nothing, nothing, nothing they can do to undo the terrible tragedy that occurred today. I would give anything for someone to have been there to supply a few ounces of prevention to avoid a pain that can never be completely cured.
04-21-2010
alaniz
Five blocks from the courthouse and six blocks from our shinny new police station, on a main street, and in broad daylight, a man with a bat walked into a small office building, demanded money, and then beat a seventy-six year old man to death and critically injured a woman. He then walked out and disappeared. The police showed up after the fact to put up their tape, take pictures, and oversee the removal of the body. Maybe they’ll catch the guy, and I sure hope they do, but who among you can tell me these people did not deserve the right to protect themselves from this horrific attack?
Every time a good guy goes down and a bad guy walks away, the balance of our society tips in the wrong direction. Every year in this country, four million crimes are prevented by the legal use of firearms. The mere presence of a firearm could have saved a life today. Every argument I have ever heard against the right of free citizens to keep and carry firearms is moot and irrelevant.
I am so deeply pained by the loss of life and injury felt today by the good people of my community. My heart and prayers go out to the families and friends of all those affected by today’s tragedy. Now is a time for tears and comforting. I hope the police can bring a swift end to the growing fear in our community of a killer walking free. However, there is nothing, nothing, nothing they can do to undo the terrible tragedy that occurred today. I would give anything for someone to have been there to supply a few ounces of prevention to avoid a pain that can never be completely cured.
04-21-2010
alaniz
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Gun Control?
Recently, the question of gun control came before the Supreme Court. The question had to do with whether the Second Amendment extends to States. Does the Federal Government have the right to force a State to change it's Gun Control laws? Does a State have the right under the Constitution, to ban particular types of firearms? These questions had me in a bit of a divide. I believe in a person's Rights as defined by the Constitution; I also believe in the rights of the individual States. This seamed to me to be a real challenge. It was a question of personal rights versus States rights, wasn't it?
Well, to solve this little quandary, I went to the Constitution itself. After all, I wasn't getting any background from the press. What DID the constitution say on the matter? And why wasn't anyone talking about it? Maybe people think it's not relevant anymore. Maybe people think it's too complicated. Maybe we've been TOLD it's too complicated. Well, I went ahead and had a look anyway, and here's what I found.
The Bill of Rights has a Preamble. A “first part,” that explains why the thing was written. Here is, in part, what it says:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.
What this means is this: That when the Federal Government was created, several States wanted to limit it's ability to abuse power by listing several restrictions and declaring certain freedoms that could not be messed with. This was done to make the people less fearful and ensure a smooth start to our fledgling Government. You see, people had just gotten out from under an overbearing, tax-happy King, they had no intention of creating a new one.
The next part is one we hear quoted all the time, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” Period. Right? This is what people call, “The Separation of Church and State.” This has led to many people feeling generally uncomfortable even mentioning faith in public and official lives. Public prayer has been banned from schools, outdoor civic events, and High School football games. All we can dare to do is have a “moment of silence.” But, it's not “period.” Look back up there, THAT'S a comma, NOT a period. What's that, you say? Why, it's the second part we have forgotten: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“ So, what this second part is saying is this, “Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise... of religion.” Really, go back and read it. I'm honestly not kidding. So what it basically says is this, the Federal Government cannot establish a State Church; AND the Government can never tell us what to pray, when to pray, or where we can pray. What the Constitution is calling for is not a Government free of prayer, but a prayer free of Government. That when the people pray, the Government needs to bow it's head, be quiet, and wait for the amen. That, my friends, is the separation of State from Church!
So how did we get it so backwards? How did we allow someone to read that line to us in such a way that it somehow made since to let Government control prayer? How did we let that one get so upside-down and backwards? And, if we missed that one, what else have we got wrong? And what about the order of the Amendments? Like it said back in the Preamble, this document was created to address some pretty serious concerns the people of the day had about Government power. So straight up, out of the box, the Government has to promise to never interfere with a person's right to worship, speak, publish, assemble, or petition the Government for a redress of grievances. All these things are in the First Amendment. The very first change to the constitution was a promise to keep their hands off of our ability to communicate with God and each-other. A vocal people, free to exchange ideas and express grievances, are more likely to remain free.
That brings us to the next part, the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's it. The whole thing. The entire Second Amendment is one-sentence-long. Albeit, a complicated sentence for those of us who went to public school. What's more, it has been interpreted in many ways, by many factions within this country, to mean many different things. Fortunately, you've had me to drag you through all that First Amendment stuff to establish context. Remember, we are talking about a document that was created to demonstrate to the people that they were free and Government was harnessed, not the other way around. Most importantly, these rules were being written into the very fabric that defined the nature of what Government was to be in this country. I am not making this up. Go back and read the preamble: these amendments were meant to be restrictive clauses to the powers of Government.
So what exactly is the Second Amendment saying? And, what's up with all the commas? At first glance it looks like a poorly worded, jumble of a sentence. On second glance, it looks as if it could be argued lots of different ways. So, what the heck? Why were the founders so lazy that they couldn't be more specific? Why follow so profound a First Amendment, with a throw-away one liner open for debate? What made this one rank higher than the right to a jury trial or, no cruel or unusual punishment? Well, it's because the Second Amendment is the one that backs up the first. It is the one that keeps a free State free.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If you look at this sentence like an English teacher or a Lawyer, you will see that it is not vague at all. It looks complex only because it is intensely specific. There are only a few things that we need to understand before we can completely parse it out.
What is a Militia and why is it necessary to the security of a free State? Well, we're not talking about the State's need to defend itself from international invasion. This was covered under Article Four of the original Constitution. We are talking a State's ability to protect itself from tyranny from above, the right of the free States to guaranty their ability to remain free. Specifically, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms so that they would never again become subjects to a crown. The founders understood that it was necessary for a free people to be able to rise up and defend their rights, their homes, and their families from oppression, whatever its source.
It was assumed at the time, that each home that contained at least on man and one rifle could be called upon to defend their community. That, these men together represented the greatest security to the citizenry in time of need. It was the declaration of the Federal Government, in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, that this right to self defense would never be taken away. The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This was the promise necessary to secure the support of the American People. The single right that guaranteed our ability to keep all the others.
It is important to note that these Rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are protected by it. These Rights are understood to be granted by God and the Constitution specifically states that they shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights was required by the people to prove that the free States and their people would remain free. Sadly, not all of the people within the States were free at the time. This would take another eighty years to change. But when freedom finally came to all peoples within the states, the Constitution was ratified again to guaranty the rights and freedoms promised by it would apply to all, equally. No State would be allowed to restrict the Rights and Freedoms of it's citizens protected under the Constitution of the United States of America.*
*Article VI of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
alaniz
Well, to solve this little quandary, I went to the Constitution itself. After all, I wasn't getting any background from the press. What DID the constitution say on the matter? And why wasn't anyone talking about it? Maybe people think it's not relevant anymore. Maybe people think it's too complicated. Maybe we've been TOLD it's too complicated. Well, I went ahead and had a look anyway, and here's what I found.
The Bill of Rights has a Preamble. A “first part,” that explains why the thing was written. Here is, in part, what it says:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.
What this means is this: That when the Federal Government was created, several States wanted to limit it's ability to abuse power by listing several restrictions and declaring certain freedoms that could not be messed with. This was done to make the people less fearful and ensure a smooth start to our fledgling Government. You see, people had just gotten out from under an overbearing, tax-happy King, they had no intention of creating a new one.
The next part is one we hear quoted all the time, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” Period. Right? This is what people call, “The Separation of Church and State.” This has led to many people feeling generally uncomfortable even mentioning faith in public and official lives. Public prayer has been banned from schools, outdoor civic events, and High School football games. All we can dare to do is have a “moment of silence.” But, it's not “period.” Look back up there, THAT'S a comma, NOT a period. What's that, you say? Why, it's the second part we have forgotten: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“ So, what this second part is saying is this, “Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise... of religion.” Really, go back and read it. I'm honestly not kidding. So what it basically says is this, the Federal Government cannot establish a State Church; AND the Government can never tell us what to pray, when to pray, or where we can pray. What the Constitution is calling for is not a Government free of prayer, but a prayer free of Government. That when the people pray, the Government needs to bow it's head, be quiet, and wait for the amen. That, my friends, is the separation of State from Church!
So how did we get it so backwards? How did we allow someone to read that line to us in such a way that it somehow made since to let Government control prayer? How did we let that one get so upside-down and backwards? And, if we missed that one, what else have we got wrong? And what about the order of the Amendments? Like it said back in the Preamble, this document was created to address some pretty serious concerns the people of the day had about Government power. So straight up, out of the box, the Government has to promise to never interfere with a person's right to worship, speak, publish, assemble, or petition the Government for a redress of grievances. All these things are in the First Amendment. The very first change to the constitution was a promise to keep their hands off of our ability to communicate with God and each-other. A vocal people, free to exchange ideas and express grievances, are more likely to remain free.
That brings us to the next part, the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's it. The whole thing. The entire Second Amendment is one-sentence-long. Albeit, a complicated sentence for those of us who went to public school. What's more, it has been interpreted in many ways, by many factions within this country, to mean many different things. Fortunately, you've had me to drag you through all that First Amendment stuff to establish context. Remember, we are talking about a document that was created to demonstrate to the people that they were free and Government was harnessed, not the other way around. Most importantly, these rules were being written into the very fabric that defined the nature of what Government was to be in this country. I am not making this up. Go back and read the preamble: these amendments were meant to be restrictive clauses to the powers of Government.
So what exactly is the Second Amendment saying? And, what's up with all the commas? At first glance it looks like a poorly worded, jumble of a sentence. On second glance, it looks as if it could be argued lots of different ways. So, what the heck? Why were the founders so lazy that they couldn't be more specific? Why follow so profound a First Amendment, with a throw-away one liner open for debate? What made this one rank higher than the right to a jury trial or, no cruel or unusual punishment? Well, it's because the Second Amendment is the one that backs up the first. It is the one that keeps a free State free.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If you look at this sentence like an English teacher or a Lawyer, you will see that it is not vague at all. It looks complex only because it is intensely specific. There are only a few things that we need to understand before we can completely parse it out.
What is a Militia and why is it necessary to the security of a free State? Well, we're not talking about the State's need to defend itself from international invasion. This was covered under Article Four of the original Constitution. We are talking a State's ability to protect itself from tyranny from above, the right of the free States to guaranty their ability to remain free. Specifically, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms so that they would never again become subjects to a crown. The founders understood that it was necessary for a free people to be able to rise up and defend their rights, their homes, and their families from oppression, whatever its source.
It was assumed at the time, that each home that contained at least on man and one rifle could be called upon to defend their community. That, these men together represented the greatest security to the citizenry in time of need. It was the declaration of the Federal Government, in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, that this right to self defense would never be taken away. The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This was the promise necessary to secure the support of the American People. The single right that guaranteed our ability to keep all the others.
It is important to note that these Rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are protected by it. These Rights are understood to be granted by God and the Constitution specifically states that they shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights was required by the people to prove that the free States and their people would remain free. Sadly, not all of the people within the States were free at the time. This would take another eighty years to change. But when freedom finally came to all peoples within the states, the Constitution was ratified again to guaranty the rights and freedoms promised by it would apply to all, equally. No State would be allowed to restrict the Rights and Freedoms of it's citizens protected under the Constitution of the United States of America.*
*Article VI of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
alaniz
Sunday, February 14, 2010
My personal relationship with God
Today I was asked about my personal relationship with God. I am asked, “Do you understand that God personally loves you?” I hear another member of my Sunday school class say, “God loves us so much, and he just wants us to love Him back.”
Each of us is a reflection of God. In each of us is an image of our creator as unique as we are. I wonder though, if we don’t also limit our understanding of God by remaking Him in our own image?
I believe that we are each born with a God shaped hole in our hearts. I have seen cultures reject God and then feel compelled to reinvent Him in some other guise. Filling an inborn need for spirituality with crystals, or incense, or God Himself renamed. I hear them chant, “The Power of the Universe is Light and Love.” And I think, “Yeah, you’re right.”
The flipside of rejecting God, I think might be recreating Him in OUR image. Recreating Him as our best friend, our confidant, our slightly oversized eternal Father figure waiting for us to climb up into His lap and pout about our hard day at work. I’m not really saying that there is anything wrong with feeling a personal connection with the Creator. I am saying that in over personalizing our image of God we run the risk of losing our sense of SCALE. We are, after all, talking about the Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, Architect of the Universe.
So, I’m sitting in Sunday school class today, surrounded by people I know well enough to make a down right fool of myself in front of (a fact that my wife continues to fail to appreciate). But today is different. Today I am asked about my personal relationship with God. My, “personal” relationship with God. Well, I don’t know. I mean, I have thought about my sense of place in God’s creation. I have thought about my responsibilities to God and my family. I have (often) thought of my debt to God for giving me life and love, for my family, for simply allowing me to participate. I thank God for letting me live a life that is much more than I deserve. I thank God for my Wife, and my Son. Two people in my life I sure as heck don’t deserve. I think of and thank God, every waking day of my life. But as to my “personal” relationship with Him, that’s a trickier topic.
I would sooner ask a flounder about his relationship with the sea. A fish is of the sea, he is from the sea. His proportions are derived from a life in the open water, far from land in the cold blue currents. The sea is his home, his sustenance, his protection; his very life’s blood runs with the same measure of salt. And yet, what can we expect that fish to know about all the wide oceans? Perhaps there is some flounder out in the North Atlantic right now, contemplating his personal relationship with that little patch of water where he sits. What sort of grasp do you suppose he has?
But here, we are not talking about some dumb fish at the bottom of some puddle of water, we are talking about the Soul of Man, and his relationship with The Creator, He that breathed light into the Stars! How about that?
As you might be able to tell, I have thought a lot about the SCALE of God. I see those pictures come back from the Hubble, and I think about the light, and the dust, and the stars being born in distant reaches of this tiny little galaxy we float around the edges of, on our tiny little raft of rock, and I am humbled by my own insignificance. Surly the Master of all creation has far more important things to do than to care about my day. Right?
But, in thinking this, am I not limiting God? Am I not imposing the limits of my ability to comprehend on the Creator Himself? And in the face of my doubt, I know, I KNOW conversations I have had with God over the years have not all been one sided. I have had many hard lessons handed to me that have steered me along this narrow, rocky path. I have seen the hand and face of God too many times in my life to believe in anything but his direct guidance and influence on the direction of my life.
So which is it? Is God this roiling infinite sea of creation far beyond the understanding of we few motes floating in the middle of some boundless universe? Or is He that loving, guiding force I know to have helped steer the course of events in my life. You know, I really don’t understand it, but I’m going to have to say, “Yes.” Yes he is, to all these things and more I am sure. So much more than this little minnow can understand, that much is for sure.
If you know me, you have probably heard me say that, “I know very little, but I suspect a great deal.” Having said that, there are a few things I believe right down to my very marrow: That no matter how far man travels, he will never out reach the beauty of God’s creation; and, I am loved by my creator. For this reason, I will forever be indebted to He who knew me before I was conceived.
That, my friends, in a nutshell, is my “personal” relationship with God.
Each of us is a reflection of God. In each of us is an image of our creator as unique as we are. I wonder though, if we don’t also limit our understanding of God by remaking Him in our own image?
I believe that we are each born with a God shaped hole in our hearts. I have seen cultures reject God and then feel compelled to reinvent Him in some other guise. Filling an inborn need for spirituality with crystals, or incense, or God Himself renamed. I hear them chant, “The Power of the Universe is Light and Love.” And I think, “Yeah, you’re right.”
The flipside of rejecting God, I think might be recreating Him in OUR image. Recreating Him as our best friend, our confidant, our slightly oversized eternal Father figure waiting for us to climb up into His lap and pout about our hard day at work. I’m not really saying that there is anything wrong with feeling a personal connection with the Creator. I am saying that in over personalizing our image of God we run the risk of losing our sense of SCALE. We are, after all, talking about the Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, Architect of the Universe.
So, I’m sitting in Sunday school class today, surrounded by people I know well enough to make a down right fool of myself in front of (a fact that my wife continues to fail to appreciate). But today is different. Today I am asked about my personal relationship with God. My, “personal” relationship with God. Well, I don’t know. I mean, I have thought about my sense of place in God’s creation. I have thought about my responsibilities to God and my family. I have (often) thought of my debt to God for giving me life and love, for my family, for simply allowing me to participate. I thank God for letting me live a life that is much more than I deserve. I thank God for my Wife, and my Son. Two people in my life I sure as heck don’t deserve. I think of and thank God, every waking day of my life. But as to my “personal” relationship with Him, that’s a trickier topic.
I would sooner ask a flounder about his relationship with the sea. A fish is of the sea, he is from the sea. His proportions are derived from a life in the open water, far from land in the cold blue currents. The sea is his home, his sustenance, his protection; his very life’s blood runs with the same measure of salt. And yet, what can we expect that fish to know about all the wide oceans? Perhaps there is some flounder out in the North Atlantic right now, contemplating his personal relationship with that little patch of water where he sits. What sort of grasp do you suppose he has?
But here, we are not talking about some dumb fish at the bottom of some puddle of water, we are talking about the Soul of Man, and his relationship with The Creator, He that breathed light into the Stars! How about that?
As you might be able to tell, I have thought a lot about the SCALE of God. I see those pictures come back from the Hubble, and I think about the light, and the dust, and the stars being born in distant reaches of this tiny little galaxy we float around the edges of, on our tiny little raft of rock, and I am humbled by my own insignificance. Surly the Master of all creation has far more important things to do than to care about my day. Right?
But, in thinking this, am I not limiting God? Am I not imposing the limits of my ability to comprehend on the Creator Himself? And in the face of my doubt, I know, I KNOW conversations I have had with God over the years have not all been one sided. I have had many hard lessons handed to me that have steered me along this narrow, rocky path. I have seen the hand and face of God too many times in my life to believe in anything but his direct guidance and influence on the direction of my life.
So which is it? Is God this roiling infinite sea of creation far beyond the understanding of we few motes floating in the middle of some boundless universe? Or is He that loving, guiding force I know to have helped steer the course of events in my life. You know, I really don’t understand it, but I’m going to have to say, “Yes.” Yes he is, to all these things and more I am sure. So much more than this little minnow can understand, that much is for sure.
If you know me, you have probably heard me say that, “I know very little, but I suspect a great deal.” Having said that, there are a few things I believe right down to my very marrow: That no matter how far man travels, he will never out reach the beauty of God’s creation; and, I am loved by my creator. For this reason, I will forever be indebted to He who knew me before I was conceived.
That, my friends, in a nutshell, is my “personal” relationship with God.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
